Before we explore how the Don Imus controversy has exposed the ethics on Clinton World, a necessary preface. The Scoreboard is not impressed with many of the analogies being thrown around lately either to defend Don Imus or to accuse his critics of hypocrisy. For example, while many (notably CNN's maiden-of vengeance Nancy Grace) were unfairly dogmatic and vitriolic in their condemnations of the Duke lacrosse team members who were falsely accused of rape, making premature assumptions about the accused male collegiate athletes in a rape case is hardly on par with gratuitously denigrating distinguished collegiate athletes for simply being female and African American. And the sometimes offensive imagery and content of rap and hip-hop music is not the equivalent of gratuitous racial and sexist insults tossed into the airwaves for yucks by a millionaire shock-jock. Lyrics are poetry, and poetry is art; when evaluating the nature of communication, context is crucial. The fact that the slang word "ho" is inappropriate and offensive as used by Imus does not automatically mean that every recording artist who uses the same term deserves Imus' fate. One may legitimately have the opinion that Imus should have been fired (he certainly deserved to be fired), but also believe there is enough artistic value in some of the rap music using similar language that blanket condemnation is a mistake. Yes, such music objectifies and marginalizes women; so do Mickey Spillane novels, "Lil Abner" cartoons, Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, and the paintings of Toulouse Lautrec.  Art needs breathing room, and license to be excessive in the pursuit of truth, beauty, and emotional connection.

One could also legitimately take the opposing position that there is no justification for anyone ever using such language in art, humor or commerce. I personally detest that opinion. I believe it constitutes a misguided and dangerous attempt to control thought, creativity and speech. Luckily, I am still permitted to use the words to argue against it.

It is this point of view that Hillary Clinton has been proclaiming from various podiums and from her website of late. In her broadside at Imus, she decried the "coarse sexism" of his language, and said his words "showed a disregard for basic decency and were disrespectful and degrading to African Americans and women everywhere." Once she had Imus' scalp to wave, she took her pronouncements to Rutgers, where she urged Americans everywhere to take "the Rutgers Pledge."

"Will you be willing to speak up and say, 'Enough is enough,' when women or minorities or the powerless are marginalized or degraded?" Clinton said in a speech before 700 at a university forum on women and public leadership. "Will you say there's no place, if there ever was, there certainly isn't now, for disrespect or bigotry to be seen as funny?"

Gosh…doesn't Senator Clinton make you all tingly when she talks like that? Actually she might, if her sentiments were heartfelt, sincere, and the product of passion rather than calculation. But they were not…they were 100% posturing.

How do we know this? We know this because, as reliably reported by Washington Post editor, liberal, Democrat, African American and social critic Colbert King, Hillary's campaign is happily spending $800,000 raised for her last month in a Pinecrest, Fla. fundraiser at the home of a Clinton supporter named Timothy Mosely. The hop-hop world knows him as Timbaland, a record producer and artist whose songs are to Hillary's "Rutgers Pledge" what a double scotch on the rocks is to the Alcoholics Anonymous pledge.

Here are some representative lyrics from one of the songs quoted by King, from Timbaland's current album:

"Nigga Your Time Is Up, I Aint Come To Kid You
I Knew You Niggas Was Dumb, But How Dumb Is You . . .
I'm A Ride Or Die Nigga, I Be Tearing [expletive] Up
We Aint Like Them Other Fools, Who Don't Compare To Us
All The Hoes Love A Nigga, They be Backing It Up
But Me I Love Money I Be Stacking It Up . . .
I'm Rich I Can Pay To Have You Six Feet Deep (Nigga)."

No "coarse sexism" there, right Hillary?

Let's forget Don Imus and the hip-hop lyric controversy and focus on Hillary Clinton, for it is she who is running for president, and a president with no values is infinitely more dangerous than the most bigoted radio personality imaginable. Her double-standard goes far beyond hypocrisy, and is much more ominous. This is brazen dishonesty squared, disrespect for the public's intelligence, plus arrogance and venality…all well-documented ingredients of the Family Clinton modus operandi, yet strangely unacknowledged by her legions of admirers.

It is hard to imagine anything more dishonest than making such sweeping condemnations of sexist and racist language while simultaneously accepting financial support from someone who not only uses it, but who makes all of his money by using it. It is a blatant demonstration of contempt for the intelligence and attention span of the American public to travel these contradictory paths simultaneously. Could there be more compelling evidence that money trumps values on Clinton World than the fact that even after the Imus debacle, the campaign has not returned the cash?

We all should know how this will proceed, of course. If King's revelation causes the media and public to focus on the tainted $800,000, Hillary will attempt to ride it out, only returning the money when there is no alternative, probably with a statement that she "didn't know" about Timbaland's lyrical creations. If it were a smaller amount, her campaign would return it quicker…if it were, say, only $10,000, Hillary would have returned it already, probably announcing the move at Rutgers. Such is the ethical cynicism on Clinton World, where no principle is anything more than a bargaining chip, a tactic, or a tool of the trade. The Woman Who Would Be President votes for the Iraq war when it is popular, and condemns the war when it isn't. She speaks in an Eastern U.S. accent when speaking to New Yorkers, and a Southern accent when addressing Southerners and blacks. She creates the "Rutgers Pledge" to reject sexist and racially charged epithets in public discourse, while accepting money from the very cultural sources her pledge attacks.

Needless to say, the Ethics Scoreboard does not trust Hillary Clinton. But why does anyone?