The Rodham family two generations back had a "raw and sparse" life, a new book reports, and most relatives were "exhausted laborers, blistered farmers drab loners, prudish spinsters, lonely bachelors and sad drinkers.

Monday, July 24, 2000

The Rodham family two generations back had a "raw and sparse" life, a new book reports, and most relatives were "exhausted laborers, blistered farmers drab loners, prudish spinsters, lonely bachelors and sad drinkers." So what? If Hillary Rodham Clinton has emerged from an impoverished and dysfunctional background to become the intelligent, skillful and successful woman no one can deny she is, rather than her background disgracing her she deserves all the more respect.

Although Mrs. Clinton was reared reasonably privileged and in a relatively affluent Chicago suburb, her father’s family came from Scranton, Pa., where her paternal grandfather worked 16-hour days in a lace factory. Relatives ran "a fleabag hotel and a beer-and-gin-joint in the heart of Scranton’s infamous red-light district."

So reports Jerry Oppenheimer in his recently released book, "State of the Union." The author has done a Herculean job of investigative reporting and uncovered facts completely missed by several others who have done Clinton biographies. The promotional bios, of course, would find such things inconvenient. Oppenheimer’s experience comes from two previous exposes, one on Martha Stewart and another on Rock Hudson. True as all three volumes may be, his interest is evidently in the dark side of his characters and his purposes may not be admirably constructive. His is not quite a hatchet job, but Clinton’s political opponents can have at it.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager won’t distribute the book at rallies, but her spin doctors could turn the implications around, such as if she has overcome all this, imagine what she can do for New York voters. Frankly, overcoming her background is not nearly the accomplishment as it will be if she can overcome her husband’s reputation.

Good journalism is a reporter uncovering a public figure’s past behavior and influences upon him or her as indicators of present character and performance. Yet, when even a very bad past has been overcome and the individual has grown morally and socially into a wholesome citizen and competent official, reporting dirt from the past contributes little more than interesting information. Unless, on the other hand, it is used constructively to demonstrate the accomplishment of recovery and relate it to current qualification.

New York voters will need to consider issues such as Hillary’s truthfulness relative to Whitewater and Travelgate. They will need to assess her objectivity and fairness in light of her allegation that all the president’s problems are the result of "a vast right-wing conspiracy." Certainly, they must consider her role as – to use the language of co-dependency studies – an enabler of her husband’s personal immorality. They need to ask if he is likely again to embarrass her when she is in office. Oppenheimer would have done better to probe into these issues, because her being elected to the Senate would become a concern of all Americans.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s family heritage cannot be perceived to qualify her for the Senate. It may be, however, that her having overcome this burden and her own personal achievements do.

Wallace Alcorn’s column appears Mondays