The political fate of Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like the stuff of tragedy. She could easily be a great president, but it is unlikely she will get the chance. Many people simply hate her; they then make up reasons not to vote for her.

What is happening to Mrs. Clinton means that the dirty work of Republicans and the New York Times done in the 1990s was effective. Bill managed to be elected twice on the strength of his personality, but he was attacked ceaselessly by Republicans who where essentially disloyal and never accepted him as legitimate. They had help from people who knew better. Hillary was subjected to the same attacks. Those attacks have left a residual air of negativity around the Clintons that they cannot shake. They have always been polarizing--about a third of the the voters in Arkansas hated them--but the cumulative effects of so many years of unprincipled smears weighs them down.

It is worth mentioning that the Clintons come as close as anyone logically can to having been proven innocent. The special prosecutor turned over every rock in Arkansas and Washington, put pressure on witnesses to lie, and still could not come up with an indictable offense. I know of no other instance in American history where people, rather than crimes, were prosecuted. Except for Bill's unfortunate personal behavior, there were no Clinton scandals.

As a psychologist, I am convinced that it is virtually impossible to convince someone to believe something they do not want to believe. Our ability to discount evidence and logic is formidable. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to change people's feelings. That's the way effective ads and propaganda work. In the Clintons, we are seeing the effects of years of vilification.

A couple of people actually read what I wrote. That's a comfort. Let me respond to a couple of points.

I certainly did not say that all the attacks were the result of Bill's personal behavior. That's just the only one that was justified. We had a cottage industry in Arkansas of well funded people trying to dig up any kind of dirt they could on the Clintons.

When they were getting started in Arkansas, well connected people did try to get one or more Clintons into deals where they could make a little money. They did not have any, and Bill's salary when he was first elected governor was, I think, $7,500 (and that's not a typo). McDougall got them into the Whitewater deal and they lost money. I used to know the name of the guy that got Hillary into futures trading. She made a little money in that and got out before the market went south. Eventually, she supported the family as a successful corporate lawyer.

(I don't want to cloud the issues, but note: GWB's payoff from the Texas Rangers really was dirty, and he did not pay his taxes.)

If you go back and look at the billing records story, you will see that once found they substantially confirmed Hillary's account of the work she did for McDougall's S&L--i.e. not much.

State regulators forced McDougall out of control of his S&L because he was crazy, but they did not close it down because they lacked the authority to do so.

I don't have much trouble believing that people lose stuff when they move. I'm still looking for a box of kitchen gadgets that disappeared in a move 30 years ago.

The other "scandals" are less obviously phony, but my point is that if there had been something illegal done, one or more Clintons would have been in jail. I know a few details about some of the charges, and I am convinced that all or nearly all of it was simply stuff that enemies made up or blew way out of proportion. The Rich pardon was unfortunate and almost certainly a mistake, but I do not believe the sinister innuendo.

I worked on and off for the Arkansas State Police for years on personnel stuff. I had two directors tell me spontaneously that Bill Clinton had never asked them to do anything shady. In Arkansas, that is an accomplishment, and a standard not upheld by at least one of Bill's successors. I think both Clintons were and are as about as honest as any two public servants we could ask for. The fact that so many people are willing to believe otherwise is the triumph of propaganda that I wrote about, and that's why I think this rises to the level of tragedy.

I think I'm forgetting a point or two, but I forgot to take notes on my critics' comments. Let me add, that I'd be very happy with a President Obama, but the Clintons are more sinned against than sinning.