Interesting editorial on Hillary Clinton. What do you think? Does she only say what she thinks people want to hear? http://www.msnbc.com/news/435074.asp The mystery that is Hillary She’s not an anti-semite, but what, exactly, does she stand for? Hillary Clinton is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. By Richard Cohen -- WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP WASHINGTON, July 19 — Is Hillary Clinton an antisemite? That is the gist of an accusation that dates to 1974, when, furious about her future husband’s loss in his first race for Congress, she allegedly excoriated Bill Clinton’s campaign manager, Paul Fray, calling him a “Jew b*stard.” Fray is backed in his accusation by his wife, Mary Lee, and another campaign worker, Neil McDonald, who was standing outside the door and insists he heard everything. To paraphrase a certain Ms. Hood, what big ears this McDonald had. AS USUAL with a Clinton scandal, contradictions andloose ends abound. Fray, for instance, is not Jewish. His paternal great-grandmother was, but he himself is a Baptist. To use a Jewish slur on a Baptist is both inexplicable and a sheer waste of antisemitic invective. A report of the alleged slur is contained in yet another new book about the Clintons, this one written by Jerry Oppenheimer, a former reporter for the National Enquirer. It’s called “State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton” — a place no one in his right mind would want to be. A DUBIOUS SOURCE Fray has spoken numerous times to the usual pack of journalistic bloodhounds seeking anything — but anything! — on the Clintons and either never mentioned this alleged slur (Version 1), or (Version 2) he did and it was ignored by hacks looking for stuff on sex. This time, he told the New York Daily News, he related the purported remark because both Oppenheimer and his wife are Jewish. This, then, was a landsman sort of thing. The brothers would understand. Sticking to the script, the Clintons responded in a time-tested way — by attacking the messenger. So the president told the Daily News that Fray had displayed “irrational behavior” during the campaign and that McDonald had gone to work for his brother in Texas because “no one else would hire him.” And then, as if on automatic pilot, the president accused Hillary Clinton’s Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, of having a hand in the current flap. “So, the only thing they have left is character assassination,” Clinton said, having just assassinated the character of two of the three people who said Hillary made the slur. All that was missing was the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Stay tuned. TEARFUL DENIAL If past is prologue, we will never know what really happened. Hillary twice broke precedent: She called a news conference to deny the charge and did so with tears in her eyes. “It did not happen,” she said. “I have never said anything like that. Ever. Ever.” She also released a letter Fray wrote her in 1997 apologizing for some remarks he had earlier made about her. “I was wrong and I have wronged you,” he wrote. “I ask for your forgiveness.” Don’t hold your breath, Paul. Up to now, Hillary said at her news conference, her “policy for the last eight years has largely been just to absorb whatever insult, whatever charge, whatever accusation anybody says and not respond because they are so outrageous and unfair.” This time she was breaking precedent and while she did not say so, her reasons were obvious: New York has a large and politically active Jewish population. She’s already in hot water for once calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. In New York, one cannot be sensible about such things. HILLARY’S HOT TEMPER Still, even if her accusers are to be believed, what does it mean? Does such a remark reveal the dark heart of an antisemite or, instead, someone who has simply lost it and reached in anger for an epithet? If that’s the case, it’s the only known example of an ethnic slur to come out of her mouth. It is inconceivable that after more than 30 years in the limelight, when — literally — some of her closest friends are Jews, this is the first time we hear of such a thing. Even if it happened, it says nothing about her except that she has a hot temper. This is not news. THE CLINTON CHARADE The accusation, though, may well resonate because in the deepest sense Hillary Clinton is unknowable. Here, after all, is a woman who jarringly praised her husband when she accepted the Senate nomination, ignoring what we all know and making me, for one, wonder what she could be thinking. Why make us a part of the great Clinton charade? For all her manifest abilities, Hillary seems to lack a center, a story that makes sense — a humanity that we can sense is like our own. She is, like Winston Churchill’s description of the Soviet Union, a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” and she often can be described only in negatives. She is not an antisemite, of that I’m sure. But what else she is, I am not sure at all. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited July 21, 2000).]
Gotta love those National Enquirer reporters. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
Who gives a flying fornication about whether or not Hilary Clinton used an anti-semetic slur 25-odd years ago? I'm Jewish, and even I don't care. What I do care about is that George W. Bush probably used an anti-semetic or other ethnic slur just yesterday. And, to top it off, he probably had no idea what the slur meant and he more than likely used it in a sentence that either began or ended with the words "Duh" or "Uhhhh"! BUffoon + SHmuck = BUSH!!! ------------------ Bring It!! [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited July 21, 2000).]
would you rather have a fun-loving idiot for president(like Now) or a serious Bore who thinks Countin' paper clips is fun ------------------ Will Work for Clutch 101 Book [This message has been edited by moestavern19 (edited July 21, 2000).]
And you guys wonder why things like this are publicized. Maybe if you'd take consevatives at face value and not attribute bigoted beliefs to them without corroborating evidence, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy wouldn't dig up Hillary's skeletons. I think this is pretty funny. "Who cares if there's evidence Hillary did? I bet Bush does it every day!" ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
I'd want the fun loving idiot but I wish he had better taste in women. Monica, Hillary, Paula, Gennifer, am I forgetting anyone? Ok Gennifer looked good when she was younger. We have another fun loving idiot running this year as well. The weed grows very well in Austin. Might have to switch to some harder stuff in Washington. ------------------ Home of Rashard Lewis and the Mighty Rams - Alief Elsik
Maybe if a frog had wings he wouldn't bruise his ass everytime he jumped! What you fail to realize is that the conservatives feel compelled to dig 25 year old crap like this up because they can't get to her on anything else. It's the only type of politics they know! ------------------ Bring It!!
Interesting thought since liberals always live in the past when it suits them and then have other things swept under the table when it is bad for them. What has Hillary done for America? Why is she considered such a great and wise person? I do not care what she said 25 years ago but I do care about the multitude of lies and deceiving statements she and her wonderful husband has said to cover up their transgressions and to blame someone else. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust [This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited July 26, 2000).]
Riiiiiight, this is something that only the right ever does. Character assassination is a uniquely Republican method, eh? Watch out for the men in white jackets carrying butterfly nets, bud. They don't have Internet access in the nuthatch. PS, I forgot I wanted to ask you this. You said, "What I do care about is that George W. Bush probably used an anti-semetic or other ethnic slur just yesterday". With no evidence, no reason whatsoever to believe the man has a prejudiced bone in his body, you're completely willing to dismiss allegations against Hillary because you think Bush is a bigot? But you think that the "politics of personal destruction" are used only by the right? ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 26, 2000).]
I've done work for Hillary Clinton and can tell you that she's a very intelligent caring human being. That being said, she's also the consumate politician, and politicians by their very nature will tell tell you what you want to hear. I think that if she were a man or was not married to Bill Clinton, it would not be an issue. she should be viewed just as all other politicians are viewed. As the scum of the Earth. ------------------ "Stranger things have happened, but none stranger than this" - Commentator after a parachutist landed in the ring of a Holyfield fight
Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve to be considered a great and wise person based on her tenure as first lady but she doesn't deserve to be marginalized either. I didn't vote for Hillary, but there is no question that having an intellegent, strong woman in the position of first lady is a threat to many people who don't believe women have any place in national politics. Let's face it. It will be a long time before a woman is elected to the office of the president. Why? The safe answer is that there are not as many qualified candidates from which to draw even though women make up 51% of America. The fact is that no woman will get a legitimate shot at the White House any time soon because we still hold the same stereotypes about women we've always held. They are just buried and not discussed. How long do you think it would take for someone to ask a woman if she thought her emotions would get in the way of her leadership? How many would ask if she would take time off when it was "her time of the month"? Or would they simply force her to submit her cookie recipe to a magazine for judging like they did with Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election. I was floored when they asked Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton to submit their best cookie recipes. They are smarter than their respective husbands but they are relegated to decorating the white house, baking cookies and working in the garden. These are lawyers and legislators, not freakin' Martha Stewart! As for Brian's comments about the right and the left using the politics of personal destruction, he is absolutely correct. I am about as bleeding heart as they come, but I am appalled at the attacks of liberals and conservatives on one another. I was as shocked by the Impeach Clinton bumper stickers that appeared almost immediately after he was elected the first time as I was by radical left wing attempts to take shots at Bob Dole because of his handicapped arm. Unfortunately, we have very few people of real integrity left in politics if any. Money has become the central focus of campaigns and our lives. Until we place the value of the individual above the value of the corporate entity, the problem will remain. I think it speaks volumes than neither the Democrats or the Republicans want any real campaign finance reform or regulation of lobbyists. How else could they afford their summer homes or trips to Vail? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
1) Don't drag Vail into this. They are completely innocent and a fine ski resort if I do say so myself. 2) I'm with you, Jeff, on pretty much everything you said. Too much money in politics, too much desire for power or prestige, too much "gotcha" politics rather than legitimate efforts to better the country. The emphasis is one picking sides and going all out to win for your side these days. The truth or what is truly best doesn't seem to enter into it. And no idea, no matter how good, is supported by the folks from the other side of the aisle, it seems. 3) It is embarrassing how little respect women are given in terms of leadership roles (or even in terms of regular, everyday life, for that matter.) There are several women who I think would make terrific Presidents or other leaders (corporate leaders, etc.) But too many of us just aren't willing to see these women in that way, and that is unfortunate. ------------------
It does not matter what she said ...WHAT HAS SHE DONE??? That is the liberal line. Just because you say you care does not mean you care if you do nothing to show it. Actions speak louder than words. She says she cares but fires the entire travel office of the white house and fills the positions with people she owes favors to. Then she trumps up changes on the people she fired to validate her actions. Which all charges proved to be false. Is that someone who cares about people? Some of those people had worked there for over 20 years through 4 different administrations. She once fired an administration assistant who she caught talking on the phone to Barbara Bush. The man had helped her with her personal computer problems when she was the first lady and just called to get some more help. He was on his own time but the deep and caring Hillary cursed him out and fired him on the spot. Is this action from a caring individual? My original question still stands..What has she done that is so great and wonderful? What policies or programs has she started that actually helped anyone but her flunkies? ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
Sorry BK, but your having a comprehension problem. I never said I was completely willing to dismiss allegations against Hillary because I think Bush is a bigot. It is my opinion that Dubya would be more likely to utter a racial or ethnic slur than would Hilary Clinton. Remember, Dubya's father once referred to his own grandchildren, the children of his son Jeb and his Latino wife, as "the little brown ones" when introducing them to Ronald Reagan. This is the stock that Dubya comes from. Look it up, and deal with it. Wipe the drool off of your keyboard, Brian. Your brain-pan is dripping. Don't you have any John Birch society literature you could read to make yourself feel warm & fuzzy again? ------------------ Bring It!!
Oooh, the dying prayer of the losing argument-- semantics! Fine. You're not completely willing, you're partially willing. I don't have a comprehension problem. I have a problem with people who make the kind of intuitive leaps you're making here. There is evidence that Hillary called someone a "Jew b*stard". There is no evidence that Bush ever did. But you sympathize, politically, with Hillary, so not only do you not care that she may have done it, your only answer is to say, in essence, "I know you are but what am I?" Let me ask you this: you say "who gives a flying fornication" if Hillary did say it. Do you not see any inconsistency in then turning around and saying, "I DO care that Bush probably did?" You are a hypocrite and obviously prejudiced against Bush based on pretty dumb conjecture. ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.
I probably shouldn't have used the same tag line that MSNBC did -- because it is really misleading. The interesting thing is that neither Paul Frey, Neil McDonald, nor Jerry Oppenheimer (the author) accused Hillary Clinton of being anti-semite. As this editorial pointed out, he had numerous opportunities to use this as a weapon. Frey related the remark to Oppenheimer as an example of an angry remark made by Hillary -- which was buried in a book. Even if it was used by Hillary, I don't think it was meant to be a racial slur -- just words spoken in anger. No more than calling someone "you stupid four-eyed hippy" would indicate that you dislike people who wear glasses or have long hair. It's words spoken in anger -- that doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily show any hidden bias. This editorial points out two interesting, and disturbing trends. One is the fact that Hillary (and Bill) don't seem to stand for anything -- they mold their thoughts and views to the audience they are addressing. It describes her as someone "who can be described only in negatives." It says that we know what she isn't, but what is she? Secondly, and this really bothers me, is that the Clintons tend to respond to any real or percieved allegation by attacking, then denouncing "the politics of personal distruction." Bill Clinton accuses Frey of showing irrational behavior, says his brother hired McDonald because no one else would, then accuses them of character assasination -- because they gave a book interview. ------------------ Stay Cool...
One other point that is interesting. People are quick to say that Hillary's comment was years ago, and doesn't matter. The Whitewater thing is from years back, and we should forget about it. Even the Lewinski thing is water under the bridge, and we should move on. Yet people continuously bring up the fact that George W. Bush may have experimented with drugs thirty years ago, and it doesn't seem to be a problem? ------------------ Stay Cool...
