Hillary Rodham Clinton: America's Lady Macbeth

[SteveDinMD]

The following article was published early this year at TimesOnline, from London.  From the author's overseas vantage point, he was able to grasp the true character of Hillary R. Clinton.  This should be mandatory reading in the run-up to the Presidential primaries. 


January 26, 2007

The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth

Hillary Clinton’s shameless political reconstructive surgery

by Gerald Baker

You can measure the scale of an American president’s troubles by the number of skutniks he deploys during his State of the Union address.
Every year during his big set-piece speech to Congress, the president will digress from the main thrust of his remarks to offer fulsome praise to some member of the audience in the gallery. This person will have been carefully selected in advance by the president’s speechwriters as an exemplar of some virtue and placed there for the purpose. The television producers will have been alerted in advance so that at the right moment, as the president talks about the heroics of this American Everyman, he or she can rise self-consciously and receive the praise of a grateful nation. This now obligatory part of a constitutional ritual is called a skutnik after the name of the first person so honoured.

One January evening in 1982, Lenny Skutnik, a government employee, dived into the freezing waters of the Potomac River to rescue a victim of a plane crash. Two weeks later, during his second State of the Union address, with the US mired in recession, Ronald Reagan had Mr Skutnik sit in the gallery and paid a moving tribute to his heroics.

This week, for his penultimate State of the Union, Mr Bush had a veritable galaxy of skutniks — soldiers, military people, a firefighter. Whatever you might feel about the wisdom of Mr Bush’s Iraq policy or the feasibility of his plans to wean Americans off petrol, you can’t help but stand and cheer the good works of a decent person.

But there was something unusual about this year’s constellation of ordinary American heroes, beyond the sheer numbers. Usually the skutnik is a presidential privilege. But so intense already is the competition for the 2008 presidential race that others have muscled in.

And so Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a skutnik of her own. She arranged for the son of a New York policeman sick with lung cancer to be there. As it happened, the man’s father died that day, and the son’s grief became a sad and very visible coda to the event.

This little incident, the skilfully choreographed exploitation of a human tragedy, the cynically manipulated deployment of public sympathy in service of a personal political end, offered a timely insight into the character of the politician who this week launched the most anticipated presidential election campaign in modern history.

There are many reasons people think Mrs Clinton will not be elected president. She lacks warmth; she is too polarising a figure; the American people don’t want to relive the psychodrama of the eight years of the Clinton presidency.

But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate.

And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly by her husband.

After that unsurpassed exercise in cynicism, nothing could be too expedient. Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive surgery. It went from the cosmetic — the sudden discovery of her Jewish ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you’ve established a reputation as a friend of Palestinians— to the radical: her sudden message of tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and everything else she had stood for.

Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over their nuclear programme.

Now, you might say, hold on. Aren’t all politicians veined with an opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T. Barnum approach to the political marketplace.

All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.

[Dihannah1]

Yes, interesting to see London's perspective, and so clearly.

[mrs. red]

And so completely accurate, IMO.

[LouiseVargas]

So are you saying that as a politician matures and gains in experience, that they don't have a right to change their opinion and their tactics?

[SteveDinMD]

Hillary's experience, to the extent she has any at all, has been in the running -- and financing -- of political campaigns.  Such "experience" has predictably taught her that counter-culture Socialism is an unlikely basis for electoral success in a U.S. national election.  That being the case, she is advancing her agenda by actively concealing it. 

[mrs. red]

I also find it IMMENSLY (sp) interesting that she is being financed by so many of Chinese descent, to the point that she is getting entire paychecks...don't tell me that there isn't a reason why this is happening.  I wonder where other than a few media reports on the web, we haven't heard much about this?  If it were Gulliani or any other Republican candidate we sure would have.

I fear her... I think if she is elected, we will see an all new high of misery index that will make Carter look like a genius. 

[Observer]

Health Care 

A Japanese doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor says, "That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks."

A British doctor says, "In my country medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in two weeks."

The American doctor, not to be outdone, interjected,

"You guys are way behind. We are about to take a woman with no brains, put her in the White House,

and then half the country will be out looking for work."

[LouiseVargas]

In all my entire life of 42 voting years (63 minus 21 equals 42), I have never experienced the Republican vitriol I have read on this list. My Dad and my husband were Republicans so I got a lot of Republican education. My Army Dad asked me to send him Nixon buttons way back when he was working in Germany and I went to Nixon HQ and got those buttons to send him. I never saw / heard one iota of mean speak during the past 42 years ... until I found Scared Monkeys. You are the meanest Republicans I've ever encountered in my life. I'm highly offended by what you write and the manner in which you write your posts. Your's is not the only political party, you know. You do realize it is a certainty that Democrats will take the White House for another eight years. And I'm not going to rub your disappointment into your faces, as that would not be civil.

[GreatOwl]

In all my entire life of 42 voting years (63 minus 21 equals 42), I have never experienced the Republican vitriol I have read on this list. My Dad and my husband were Republicans so I got a lot of Republican education. My Army Dad asked me to send him Nixon buttons way back when he was working in Germany and I went to Nixon HQ and got those buttons to send him. I never saw / heard one iota of mean speak during the past 42 years ... until I found Scared Monkeys. You are the meanest Republicans I've ever encountered in my life. I'm highly offended by what you write and the manner in which you write your posts. Your's is not the only political party, you know. You do realize it is a certainty that Democrats will take the White House for another eight years. And I'm not going to rub your disappointment into your faces, as that would not be civil.

Louise, I do agree with you.  I have found this to be a thread which I will read with a "grain of salt."  Like you, I can understand the discontent which would be caused because of differences in philosophy.  The hateful way in which it is many times written is why there should never be a debate here over political matters.  Too many take it so personal.

I have always voted for a candidate regardless of party.  To classified most of all in a particular party as harmful for the country is to ignore what is best for the country.  Regional needs or politics will often dictate and attitude, however, hateful remarks are a product of insensitive people.

[SteveDinMD]

Louise, GreatOwl: 

I fail to see any remarks in this thread that could qualify as "hateful."  Perhaps you take offense when people expose the fraud that is Hillary R. Clinton.  Sometimes it can be difficult to hear that there is no Santa Claus.  I'm sorry, but the price of freedom being eternal vigilance, I consider myself duty bound to reveal the truth though it might prove disappointing to some.  Continuing in that spirit, just what are Hillary's qualifications to serve as President?  I propose the following: 

1)  She was married to a President, which would seem to equally qualify Laura Bush and every other First Lady to seek the office. 

2)  She was a lightweight lawyer in Arkansas, unethically representing clients before the State government while her husband was Governor. 

3)  She was a ruthless political operative specializing in intimidation campaigns and slush funds. 

4)  She's been a back bench U.S. Senator from New York for going on 7 years with a notably undistinguished record.  She holds neither any chairmanship nor other leadership position in caucus, and she's sponsored absolutely NO legislation of any significance.  In fact, her most notable (and correct) vote while in the Senate -- authorizing the Iraq War -- is such a political liability in Democratic primary politics that she continuously disavows it. 

5)  She has tirelessly and successfully used her various positions and connections to unethically enrich (and illegally) herself.  She sold pharmaceutical stocks short while publicly trashing the industry as First Lady while nominally in charge of the Clinton health care initiative.  For anyone else, that qualifies as Securities Fraud.  The house she lives in on Massachusetts Avenue in DC was purchased with a $5.4 Million interest-free loan from "friends."  Yeah, I bet they're REAL close.  She cheerfully accepted an $8 Million advance from Simon & Schuster for the publishing rights to her book, even though Newt Gingrich was forced a few years earlier to decline a $4.5 Million advance from Harper Collins for two books as a violation of Congressional ethics rules.  I guess there must be different rules for Hillary and everybody else.  She also looted a number of items from the White House Permanent Collection upon her husband leaving office.  These are but a few examples of many. 

All told, Hillary figures to be the most unaccomplished lightweight ever to win the Presidential nomination of a major political party. 

[LouiseVargas]

 

She will be elected.

[GreatOwl]

Steve, my remarks are more in general about all of the threads.  I observe many trying to attach some sort of political label to everything these days.  I am not here to debate Mrs. Clinton's credentials any more than I would try to defend President Bush and the tactics used to get us into Iraq.  I think as you read all threads and comments as I do, you will come across many "hateful" comments that very often are politically biased.  I just will not feed into that.  You state your positions clearly and I appreciate that. 

Quite frankly, I really have problems with every single person running for President this time around.  This includes all parties.  It is the nature of the "game" I guess.  I get tired of the constant negativity attached to elections.  In the past years it seems to begin much earlier each election.  I do like to hear what a candidate proposes should be done for the country.  I get sick of hearing and seeing the constant speeches and ads about how the "opponent" can't or didn't or shouldn't.  If a candidate would stay away from that sort of thing they certainly would have my vote in a second.  So far NONE of them have.  I have no idea how I will vote, but that is months away.  I do not need to be told over and over again on a TV ad about what the other candidate did or can't do.

I can research and read for myself.

[LouiseVargas]

Dear Great Owl,

Thanks so much for responding. I used to vote for a ticket candidate regardless of party.

For the Republicans:
I agree there will always be discontent. However before I would ever again give credence to an opposing political party, they would have to demonstrate civility. In other words, argue your points clearly and factually and SAY IT NICELY. If you want my vote, it is still up for grabs. I also have the power to tell everyone in my building to NOT vote for you. I also have more neighbors across the street. I have at least 30 people each week on Wednesdays at the AA meeting.

Much love, GO,
Louise

[SteveDinMD]

Steve, my remarks are more in general about all of the threads.  I observe many trying to attach some sort of political label to everything these days.  I am not here to debate Mrs. Clinton's credentials any more than I would try to defend President Bush and the tactics used to get us into Iraq.  I think as you read all threads and comments as I do, you will come across many "hateful" comments that very often are politically biased.  I just will not feed into that.  You state your positions clearly and I appreciate that. 

Quite frankly, I really have problems with every single person running for President this time around.  This includes all parties.  It is the nature of the "game" I guess.  I get tired of the constant negativity attached to elections.  In the past years it seems to begin much earlier each election.  I do like to hear what a candidate proposes should be done for the country.  I get sick of hearing and seeing the constant speeches and ads about how the "opponent" can't or didn't or shouldn't.  If a candidate would stay away from that sort of thing they certainly would have my vote in a second.  So far NONE of them have.  I have no idea how I will vote, but that is months away.  I do not need to be told over and over again on a TV ad about what the other candidate did or can't do.

I can research and read for myself.

GreatOwl: 

In every poll on the topic, the public says that it abhors negative campaigning, yet every election reveals that negative campaigns are by far the most effective.  The most accomplished practitioners of this genre win time and time again.  What are we to make of this phenomenon?  One interpretation is that the voters, while most strongly influenced by fear and anger, find the experience wholely unsatisfying.  Personal satisfaction, though, matters little to the political operatives who manage campaigns for a living.  They're interested only in results.  That being the case, I'm afraid negative campaigns figure to be with us for quite some time. 

Perhaps, though, they're a necessary evil.  The voters, after all, don't elect platforms or programs.  They elect PEOPLE, who once in office may opt to do other than what they promised as candidates.  Conversely, they might lack the personal competence to properly implement even the best program, or they might demonstrate unsound judgement in dealing with issues unanticipated by the electorate during the campaign for office.  Character matters.  So do experience, skill, and judgement.  Perhaps there is no better way to demonstrate the differences among candidates in these areas than to draw comparisons which can be construed as negative. 

[SteveDinMD]

She will be elected.

She might be, which I fear we would all come to deeply regret. 

[LouiseVargas]

I've grown weary with you, Steve. Have a nice life.

[GreatOwl]

Steve, I grow tired of a society which "votes against" a candidate rather than supporting a candidate.  You are obviously against most if not all the Democratic Candidates, which is your choice.   Instead of telling us what we will regret with those candidates I would much rather see you tell us why a specific Republican or even independent candidate deserves to be elected to any office.

You have written off certain candidates and that is the American way.  The best way to change my mind is to tell me what your desired slate of candidates "will do" for the country and not what others will not do.

[LouiseVargas]

I've come back to the Political Forum to ask Steve a question.

What do you think Hillary will do wrong?  I'm a little scared today,

[Red]

Finally the Left and the Right Agree on Hillary Clinton’s Double Talk … Devastating John Edwards Campaign Ad

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2007/11/03/finally-the-left-and-the-right-agree-on-hillary-clintons-double-talk-devastating-john-edwards-campaign-ad/

Hillary is her own worst enemy. Actually Hillary's campaign has to do two things that most other candidates do not:

1. Come up with excuses for the double talk that she has taken during her years as Senator.
2. Come up with excuses for some questionable situations during her husband's years.

Keep in mind Hillary made the comment that you go 2 for the price of 1 when Bill Clinton was elected. She has much explaining and her fellow Dems are holding her feet to the fire, as they should.

[GreatOwl]

Finally the Left and the Right Agree on Hillary Clinton’s Double Talk … Devastating John Edwards Campaign Ad

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2007/11/03/finally-the-left-and-the-right-agree-on-hillary-clintons-double-talk-devastating-john-edwards-campaign-ad/

Hillary is her own worst enemy. Actually Hillary's campaign has to do two things that most other candidates do not:

1. Come up with excuses for the double talk that she has taken during her years as Senator.
2. Come up with excuses for some questionable situations during her husband's years.

Keep in mind Hillary made the comment that you go 2 for the price of 1 when Bill Clinton was elected. She has much explaining and her fellow Dems are holding her feet to the fire, as they should.

How about you Red?  I can read, listen and understand what candidates say.  How about a few articles which support the positive rather than the negative.  It would be a breath of fresh air.   Perhaps there are some positive aspects about some of the candidates which we should all know about.  I refuse to vote against a candidate.  I do wish to discover what positive issues are out there and what a candidate can do, or at least proposes to do, for the country and of course secondly what they can do for me as a senior citizen.