From Kevin Williamson at National Review, Move On [1]
“Move on!” is a strange demand to make on behalf of a woman such as Mrs. Clinton. “Move on!” means drawing a line at the current moment in the timeline, leaving the past to the past and dedicating now to the future. That sounds appealing from a certain addlepated and idealistic point of view, but if you are running on a long record in public office and on yor experience, insisting that the past is a foreign country is odd, indeed. In 2000, a young and fresh-faced Barack Obama might have plausibly used “move on!” as a slogan: The country certainly was ready to move on from the Bush years, and he was youthful, energetic, and relatively new to the scene. Mrs. Clinton has many qualities that she might offer voters, but she soon will be running hard up against her 70th birthday, and her campaign of 1990s nostalgia represents the opposite of a break with the past. She is offering the very freshest political thinking of 1968 when she isn’t sidelined into the latest cutting-edge policy ideas from 1916.
But consider this: President Clinton’s performance in office demanded a “move on!” Mrs. Clinton’s performance as first lady, aiding and abetting her husband’s various misdeeds (which were far from limited to sexually preying on the help) inspired a great deal of “move on!” Mrs. Clinton’s time in the Senate called for a “move on!” of its own. Her tenure as secretary of state was “move on!” after “move on!” after “move on!” She’s still demanding we “move on!” today, and her hangers-on sing a “move on!” chorus day and night.
It says something about the Clintons that every time a member of that sorry clan is given a position of public trust, it ends with a demand that we forget how they abused that trust and instead “move on!”