"Clinton Fights to Keep Impeachment Taboo" headlined the Washington Post, with the following subheadline: "After Spat, Campaigns Know to Expect Swift Reprisal for any Hint of the Scandal."

And the Post reported: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband."

Can you believe this?

The American people are now expected through all members of the media – and all election crowd questioners – to observe censorship. There are to be no questions regarding impeachment, trial and conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice of the presidential candidate's husband – who, if she could ever get elected, would have Slick Willie, one of American history's most spectacular and unforgettable adulterous sexual organists, as the first First Gentleman!

(Column continues below)

Hillary campaign senior adviser Howard Wolfson has announced that any public references to Bill Clinton's myriad misbehaviors are "under the belt" – (meaning below the belt, as unfair), rather than that area of attention by a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, under the Oval Office desk.

The Post reports:

"Although she has spent the past seven years establishing her own identity as a public servant, Clinton has been embracing the more popular aspects of her husband's presidency more widely as she mounts her own campaign, with frequent references to their time together in the White House and their joint legacy.

"And as she has invoked the good Bill Clinton, she has risked invoking the bad, several Democratic strategists said: 'She's using him in this campaign, so why can't somebody else use him?' asked a veteran of Democratic presidential politics who is not currently aligned with a candidate but who, like numerous other Democrats, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the Clintons. 'She's just made him fair gain. He's part of her strategy, so why can't he be part of one of her opponents?'"

Also reported:

"But the issue has lingered at the edges of the nomination battle, starting with Clinton's quip about her experience with 'evil and bad men' at a forum last month in Iowa on her debut trip to the early-caucus state. While many in the audience assumed she was referring to her husband, several Clinton advisers said it was more likely a dig at Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel in the inquiry into Bill Clinton."

Then there is James Carville, who has announced:

"Mentioning the impeachment would be tantamount to political suicide. Nothing is off-limits, but it would be awfully stupid. What do you think attitudes among Democrats are about impeachment and Ken Starr? This is not a Washington dinner party here. This is an election, a nominating process, among Democrats."

Indeed yes, Big Jim. And will Barack Obama or John Edwards or any of all the rest of those Democrat candidates for president allow the campaign-fund-wealthy Hillary to impose any such censorship? Here is the absolutely compelling question: How on earth will she control the first gentlemen's undeniably historic-and-unrestrained-by-any-wedding-vows, apparently perpetual priapism?"

And, can we imagine all of the U.S. media giving in to such Hillary censorship?

I can imagine some. But by no means all. And surely not me.

And any more Hillary campaign censorship threats on this issue will surely demonstrate to the majority of American voters that First Gentleman William Clinton would be a White House sex bomb, waiting to explode.

---

Related special offer:

"Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists"