Posted on 06/09/2003 9:14:32 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Can you stand one more word about Hillary? I'll be quick. I had a chance to question her once — and it was just one question. She was announcing for senator (more or less), and I was among the pressies. When she called on me, I said, "Mrs. Clinton, do you stand by your statement of January 1998 that the charges against your husband were the result of a 'vast, right-wing conspiracy'?" She fixed me with a cold, hateful look and said, "I'm not going backward, I'm going forward," while jabbing her finger at the next questioner.
Well, now she has addressed my question, in a way, in her new book. Incidentally, do you believe what she says about what she knew, when she knew it? No, neither do I. But who among us can flat refute it? We have to rely mainly on common sense.
Just about the saddest, and most revealing, thing about that infamous Today Show interview — the one in which she talked about the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy — was her use of the words "proven true." She said, "If all that [the Lewinsky stuff] were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true." She, of course, did not say, "Of course it's untrue — why would my husband, the president of the United States, use a 21-year-old intern for sex in the Oval Office?" She couldn't say that. Instead, she got all legal about what would be "proven true."
Of course, who am I to hold her (strictly) to her words during those days, given what her state of mind must have been?
Frankly, the saddest thing I ever heard HRC say took place in that infamous Talk magazine interview, with Lucinda Franks. Do you remember that she said, "I'm no Miss America"? She must have known full well that, among her husband's mistresses (or whatever), had been a real, live Miss America. That sort of made me feel sorry for her, believe it or not.
A fellow conservative journo asked me the other night, "Do you think she'll be our president?" I couldn't answer, unhesitatingly, no. She may well be. She may well be. It seemed impossible that Clinton would be elected in 1992. It seemed impossible that he would be reelected, given the 1994 midterms and what we knew about Clinton. It seemed impossible that he would serve out his second term, given what (further) we had found out about him. Mrs. Clinton's election to the Senate seemed rather unlikely.
I'm just not comfortable, at this point, saying that Clinton — any Clinton — won't get his/her way. The American people — and not just New Yorkers — seem to like them, a lot (and don't pepper me with reminders about how he never got 50 percent of the vote — I know all that; and a lot of presidents are elected narrowly or with pluralities). I just don't trust "the American people" not to keep electing them.
But then, I'm not a politician, not a populist, and don't have to get all weepy about the great American people. They're okay, but . . .
• Can you stand one more word about the New York Times? I'll be quick. For a long time, I thought of the Times as a great big battleship, and every scandal and controversy surrounding it as a mere pebble, flicked against the hull of that great battleship. But now I'm not so sure. I think that the institution has taken on water. I think that it has been damaged, all around the world. Times staffers themselves became disgusted with the paper's leadership — the anti-Augusta crusade; the anti-Bush, anti-war hysteria (maybe); the Jayson Blair matter (of course); the Bragg business; and probably some other things. Timesmen themselves became disgusted — a little bit embarrassed, perhaps for the first time, about where they worked — and other journalists lost their awe over the paper. The Times proved itself to have feet of clay. It got knocked — it knocked itself — off its pedestal.
The Times became risible. And the Times — infuriating as it was — was really never risible. Here's something Jay Leno said last week: "Sean Penn has published a 4,000-word essay in Friday's New York Times defending his visit to Iraq and his position on the war. That's pretty amazing, a writer for the New York Times who actually visited the places he's writing about." It used to be said, "When you've lost Johnny Carson, you've lost America." The Times had become a figure — an institution — of fun.
The time just may be right for a conservative — at least a right-of-center — national newspaper. Sort of a higher-grade USA Today, conservatively tinged. Can you imagine, for example, Roger Kimball as boss of the cultural pages? A paper can challenge the hegemony of the (forthrightly left-wing Times), the same as Fox and other things wrecked the hegemony of the mainstream (three) networks. Let a thousand flowers bloom, media-wise (and otherwise). We have arrived, just possibly, at a quite big Media Moment.
One more thing: Did you see what Seth Mnookin, of Newsweek, said in the course of his article on the fall of Raines? "[R]ight-wing ideologues tried to make the Times's implosion a cautionary tale about affirmative action or perceived liberal bias." Just "right-wing ideologues," huh? Both the words "right-wing" and "ideologues" are wrong. Moreover, has Newsweek ever printed the words "left-wing ideologues"?
• I've told you that Sen. Bob Graham has become unhinged in his rhetoric, as he runs for president. He's a moderate, so he has to sound like a nut, in order to appeal to his party's primary voters. Most recently, he said, "President Bush should stop ignoring the needs of the American people in order to enrich the pockets of a privileged few." Bob Graham knows better than that — he knows better than to sound like a street-corner Marxist, circa 1923. I don't think he'll fool any Democratic primary voters — they know he's not insane. And he will have lost the respect of people like me. About that, however, he must not care — in his pursuit of this crown.
• I'm awfully sorry that Vice President Cheney will headline a fundraiser for Arlen Specter, as the good liberal senator runs against Rep. Pat Toomey — a Reagan conservative — for the Republican senatorial nomination in Pennsylvania. Cheney, surely, is a Toomey man, and I guarantee you he'd pull the lever for Pat, if he could. But the White House (or someone) has decreed that Specter must be supported, and Cheney et al. will do anything to hang on to the Republican majority.
Look, I'd do anything (almost) to hang on to the Republican majority. I'd vote for Lucifer himself if he had an "R" after his name, if the Senate (and much else) hung in the balance. (N.B. That was a joke.) Thing is, Toomey can win . . . the nomination and the Senate seat. Pennsylvania is not exactly conservative-shy: They were happy to send Rick Santorum to the Senate, lemme tell you.
Ah, Cheney, if you have to show up and do that, at least don't look happy about it — and please don't go too far in your rhetoric. And maybe speak to us in code, or something, about how, really, Toomey would be the far superior senator.
• I give you the constitutional genius Sheila Jackson-Lee, Democratic representative from Texas, on the flag amendment: "The Constitution is to give rights. This amendment does nothing to enhance the rights of Americans." As for the first sentence of that statement, don't let this congresswoman near your kid's civics class.
• Over in the Middle East, they're discussing whether the Palestinians will acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Excuse me, but didn't we go through this before, and why do we have to go through it again? This was a huge issue, at the beginning of Oslo: whether the PLO would recognize Israel's right to exist. The PLO charter called (calls?) for the destruction of Israel. Arafat said that that plank was caduque — that's the word he used, a French word, meaning "null and void." And now Mahmoud Abbas is saying, "Waal, just not sure . . ."
How many times are civilized people going to buy this same rug? We've been discussing Palestinian recognition of the right of Israel to exist all of my life. Frankly, I don't know whether I'll live to see this forthright, unhedged, sincere recognition.
But then, the Berlin Wall fell, and Lou Gehrig's consecutive-game record was broken.
And, weirdly enough, some guy came along and won three U.S. Juniors and three U.S. Amateurs — six USGA tournaments — in a row. And then four majors in a row.
I'm almost ready for anything.
• I want to remind you NRO-niks to read Danielle Crittenden's Amanda Bright@home. Danielle is a smart and delightful writer, and just as good a speaker. (The talk I heard her give at the Manhattan Institute is one of the best such talks I have ever heard.) While you're at it, be sure that you've read her non-fiction book (Amanda is a novel), What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman. It is full of wisdom, and snappiness, and common sense — which, of course, is distressingly uncommon, at least among the (over-) lettered.
Another book? You have a new Peggy Noonan volume available, this one a collection, entitled A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag: America Today. I could go on for hours about Peggy (so could you, I'm sure), but I'll say simply this: I once heard Bill Buckley say of Jeane Kirkpatrick, "She ought to be woven into the flag as the 51st star." (When I reminded Amb. K. of this, she said, "That's the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me." I responded, "That's the nicest thing anybody has ever said about anybody.") Well, I say the same about Peggy N.: so make it 52 stars.
• Care for a matrimonial note? I noticed in the New York Times that a Rockefeller got married: Stuart Rockefeller married a girl named Julia D'Amico. According to the notice, "Ms. D'Amico, 34, is keeping her name."
Really? Wow.
• A little mail, then out:
"Dear Jay: Cookies and ice cream with a dictator! This is a story from the Omaha World Herald about a college professor taking a group of students to Cuba for some propaganda mission or some nonsense. In any event, the professor went to Cuba to scout things out earlier in the year and had cookies and ice cream with Fidel Castro. The money quote is: 'Delegation members and the professors also met President Fidel Castro. Eller said members had cookies and ice cream with the president. "It was crazy sitting around the table eating ice cream with one of the most historic people of the past century," he said.'
"What was next, nap time in the gulag?"
And,
"Jay, you mentioned an appearance by Justice Thomas before a group of high-school students. He also made the following priceless comment about enforced liberal orthodoxy among blacks (I paraphrase from memory): 'When I was a kid [in the segregated South] there were certain places you couldn't go to because of the color of your skin. Folks would say, "Don't go into that neighborhood — that's no place for a colored boy." Today, there are still places where blacks aren't supposed to go — neighborhoods of certain [conservative] ideas: "Don't go into that neighborhood. That's no place for a black man!"'
"I loved it. Mental segregation has supplanted physical segregation and the enforcers of the former are found on the left."
Thomas for Chief Justice, y'all. Pass it on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.