November 17, 2007
Clinton & Clinton
From The New York Times:
FOR LOVE OF POLITICS Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years By Sally Bedell Smith.
He is a virtuosic performer with reckless appetites. She is a plodding but savvy political practitioner. Her cool self-possession and occasional dogmatism stand in sharp contrast to his love of speechmaking, his “compulsive need to seduce” and his ideological elasticity. Both are cynical idealists, having been conditioned by decades of combat, going back to Bill’s first campaign, an unsuccessful House race in 1974, to see enemies and vast conspiracies behind every setback. They are genuinely fond of each other, even if he occasionally strays and she occasionally shouts profanity-laced tirades (although, as Myers tells the author, “she always crawled back to him”). And in a profession generally known for prevarication, the Clintons are notable in their readiness to bend the truth to fit political and personal necessity.
Smith covers all the familiar territory — the health care debacle, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, welfare reform, the budget surplus, Monica Lewinsky, impeachment — and manages to come up with some fascinating tidbits. She reports, for instance, that during one of Hillary’s private White House strategy sessions for her incipient race for the Senate seat then held by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the senator’s salty-tongued wife and longtime campaign manager, Liz, made her annoyance clear to the first lady. “You lie about what happens,” Mrs. Moynihan scolded the upstart who would dare occupy her husband’s seat. “You mislead people. You haven’t taken advice.” The pragmatic Hillary, although “disconcerted by such candor,” sucked it up and kept inviting her back “to take full advantage of Liz Moynihan’s unrivaled experience.”
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 10:05 AM | Permalink






Comments
This is an interesting article. I'm currently reading Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, which comes to some of these same observations.
Unfortunately, commentary on the Clintons (Hillary especially) is so reductive. For example, to just suggest only that Hillary is "controlling," as many do (and not just on Fox), is not only sexist, but inaccurate and damages that national debate over the next presidency.
Posted by: steve | Nov 17, 2007 12:41:30 PM
You know what? I'm Hillaried out already. In 1991, I thought she was just fantastic, and I have had 16 years to watch her lie like a lawyer -- that is, lie like a rug -- and artifact just about every emotion consistent with getting where she wants to go. That the prospective first woman president has to be a poll-driven, lobby-corrupted prevaricator without peer whose moral center is harder to find than the original hole in the ozone layer is baffling and shaming to me. Until I have to hold my nose and vote for her for no better reason than that she's not an admitted Republican, I'll put my money, hope and energy to use on behalf of better candidates -- of which there are many. Meanwhile, I deeply wish this blog would go Hillary-free.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 17, 2007 3:43:25 PM
Elatia, I think you will find you need to pace yourself.
Meanwhile, could it be true that Wolf Blitzer, having been deemed acceptable by the Clinton campaign, is seeking a new (a la Rather's "courage") sign off?
I'd like to suggest: "Fly my pretties!"
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 17, 2007 6:21:48 PM
Carlos, you're right. If I eat my liver out over the situation, it'll do nobody any good, least of all me. But I can't help being sorry that an old, white, vengeful, over-exposed club woman with tired table politics, chest freezer ethics, meaning-free rhetoric and sky-high non-accountability has to be The One. But I'm still not over the death of Barbara Jordan, and neither should you be. She was, actually, The One.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 17, 2007 8:29:57 PM
Post a comment