Hillary Clinton and the end of politics
Katie Couric on the Today program asked Hillary Clinton about the health care insurance debacle
over which she presided:
But were you surprised at the backlash? The really vitriolic, violent backlash against you in many ways? Do you think it was good old-fashioned sexism?
As we can judge from Couric’s question, if Hillary became president of the United States, no one in respectable media and politics would ever say or ask anything critical about her presidency.
And this would follow a well established pattern. At the beginning of her husband’s first term she took on a major policy-making position within the administration, and not a single Republican and not a single mainstream journalist questioned the propriety of an unaccountable, non-dismissible person occupying such a post. When she appeared before a Congressional committee in early 1993, so awed were the Republicans by her honorable position as First Lady and her status as a feminist icon that they declined to deal with her as the political person she was. Then she got elected to (and has served two and half years in) the U.S. Senate without once appearing in any public forum where she would have to answer critical questions from the press
. And her opponent from the Party of Potted Plants in that election, a callow youth known as Congressman Rick Lazio, never even attempted
to hold her to account for this unprecedented conduct by a candidate for high office in this country.
If the supine response Hillary has already elicited from the media and the Republicans in the course of her career has been an unprecedented outrage, a Hillary presidency, with all its power and might, would be inconceivably worse. This woman is the living, breathing abolition of politics.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 18, 2003 02:38 AM | Send
I deleted a comment by Abby as we do not allow vulgar, low-level comments such as that at this website, especially when directed at the president of the United States. I would have written directly to Abby to explain what I had done, but she hides her e-mail address behind this charming address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
i thought ann coulter’s parting description of lowry and the ‘..boys’ over at national review was an apt description to carry over and descibe bush. after all, when it come to the “religion of peace” bush’s foreign policy is almost identical to that over at national review.
i suppose though that auster did not approve of coulter’s hilarious description of the ‘..boy’ which sent her to fame and stardom in conservative circles. so explaining why it should also be applied to bush won’t get me very far.
i suppose i should add that what really sent the ‘..boys’over at national review into a tizzy, was coulter’s ideas on how to handle muslims on the domestic level. bush’s domestic “religion of peace” policy towards islam, is right in line with national review’s, but bush is not one of the ‘boys’, is he?
Hillary’s m.o. of refusing to be answerable to the press continues. Here is Diana West:
“After asking Mrs. Clinton to discuss some of the high-rev political commentary in some of the high-rev political parts of the memoir, the Post dutifully relayed to its readers that the New York senator ‘declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book.’ She declined to be interviewed about the political content of the book, did she? … What we’ve got here is a U.S. Senator who writes a book to launch a probable presidential candidacy while claiming the near-divine right of first ladies (and criminal suspects) to remain silent.”