Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the Ohio Democratic Party dinner at the Ohio State Fairgrounds in Columbus, Ohio, on May 12. (AP Photo/Paul Vernon)

Since Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid for the U.S. presidency in 2008, the media has not asked her the really tough questions regarding her role during her husband’s presidency.

For example, during the first Democratic debate on April 26, host Brian Williams of MSNBC hardly mentioned her previous role as first lady from 1993 until 2001. In fact, many commentators have stated that the most difficult hurdle Hillary faces in her bid to secure the Democratic nomination is to account for the vote she cast in 2002 authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. For example, in a piece written for The New York Times on February 18, Patrick Healy writes that “navigating the antiwar anger…is perhaps her biggest challenge.” Hence, the major question that is currently being raised is: Can Hillary convince voters that she is at once for the war and against it? And the answer is: Of course she can! Talking out of both sides of one’s mouth is a Clinton trademark: both husband and wife have perfected this to the point that they are almost ventriloquists.

In fact, Bill and Hillary must be laughing at the characterization of this as “one of the most difficult challenges” they face in order to secure the White House. Bill and Hillary have so many skeletons in their closet they are delighted when there are issues distracting the public from their corrupt and decadent lives. Thus far, the Clintons have managed to escape the media frenzy on the question which they surely fear the most: To what extent was Hillary embroiled in all the scandals that afflicted her husband’s presidency?

It is almost as though, pitying “poor Hillary” for the humiliation she endured during the Monica Lewinsky episode, the media is reluctant to bring it all up again. After all, one might argue, that was her husband’s doing not hers. Also, there is an unspoken fear that to judge a woman’s record via the actions of her husband is somewhat unfair and sexist. But if we accept either the “poor Hillary” interpretation or the sexist argument, we are in fact playing right into their hands: The Clintons want nothing more than to discuss Hillary’s life and actions only from the moment she became senator of New York in 2001.

Yet, when a candidate runs for office, his or her whole career is indeed fair game for scrutiny and debate. Furthermore, in Hillary’s case, in 1992 when Bill was hot in the throes of proving to the public that Gennifer Flowers was merely a peccadillo for which he was terribly sorry and which was now buried in the past (let’s ignore the fact, just for one moment, that his transgression had lasted twelve years), he did not hesitate to parade his wife as an asset on national television. In fact, during an interview on 60 Minutes in January 1992, Hillary’s “stand by my man” pose was so successful that Bill proudly and smugly soon promised when he was elected, Americans would get a “two for the price of one presidency”: both Bill and Hillary would be America’s loyal public servants. Hence, exploring Hillary’s role during the Clinton years is not sexist or insulting—ask the Clintons, for it is they who initially set those ground rules.

The first and most obvious question the media must ask is: Were the Clinton years a “dual presidency” of sorts? If not, when did this dual presidency end and why? It is a matter of public record that Hillary was given unprecedented power as first lady.  In 1993, she headed the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Even after her health care initiative was roundly rejected, Hillary still had a preeminent role. She did not simply perform the role of being an ambassador for American causes, such as on issues for women and children. She continued to be a key participant in the administration: for example, she influenced legislation by shepherding the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and along with Janet Reno she created an Office for Violence against Women at the Justice Department. Thus, Hillary’s years as first lady were an important part of her career and her rise to national attention. It is right to ask with fresh lenses: What was her role in Whitewater, the death of Vince Foster, the curtailment of “bimbo eruptions,” Travelgate, Filegate, and Monicagate? Any other candidate with this kind of past would surely be put into the hot seat on these points.

And then there is the whole area of their grotesque personal lives: When did Hillary discover that her husband had resumed his philandering after Gennifer Flowers? Or did she know all along that he was not contrite in 1992 and thus, was she complicit in her husband’s lies to the public in the 60 Minutes interview? When she discovered that Gennifer Flowers was not the last of his wanderings and decided nonetheless to remain in the marriage, did she accept that their marriage would be an “open” one? Did she have an affair with Vince Foster—as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years? (In fact, this was also alleged by Gennifer Flowers. In her memoir, entitled Gennifer Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, written in 1995, the former Clinton mistress states that Bill said of Hillary: “She’s had more women than I have!”). And finally, after Bill left the presidency, despite all the national torment caused by his behavior while he was in office, it is well known that he had even more affairs. Hence, do the Clintons now have an open marriage? Is this going to continue when they are both in the White House?

These are not just seedy questions about one’s personal life. Currently, the Right and the Left in America are embroiled in a culture war. Hence, a candidate’s lifestyle is essential to determining where she stands on the critical and polarizing debates of our time. And in any case, only those who have much to hide hate to discuss their personal lives—otherwise, the rest of us rather enjoy sharing it.

It is evident that Hillary behaves very much like Bill when it comes to the use of their marriage as a political tool: she distances herself from Bill when it is not good for her public reputation—as she did in 2000 when Bill left office. And now, as the time nears for her to campaign, Bill is looking rather useful again; he has stepped up his public appearances. Thus, does this mean that we are going to have another Two for One Presidency? Will he have a role in her administration? And what guarantee will the public have that when Hillary brings Bill with her either into the White House or on foreign trips, he won’t resume his nasty pawing and groping of young flesh? How can we be sure they will not plunge the nation into sexual scandal once again?

In a nutshell, the Ghost of Clinton Past is hovering: no amount of ventriloquism is going to be sufficient to explain all that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, the Dual Presidents, must account for before we allow them to set foot in the White House again. It is high time that the media rise to the challenge of vetting our candidates thoroughly instead of allowing the candidates to dictate the terms of what is permissible for the public to discuss.

- Washington Watch is a regular column published each week in Insight.