Howie Kurtz Tempts The Swarm
Howard Kurtz is due for a drubbing; one thing liberal blogs can’t stand is when the ‘MSM’ questions their collective wisdom, and Kurtz comes down on the opposite side on the Times‘ front-page ‘expose’ of Hillary and Bill:
Of course the Clintons’ marriage is news–and the story makes clear that they’ve both thought about how to package it for the public. There is even a joint statement from their two press secretaries, like some SALT-talks communique.
If Hillary hadn’t been married to Bill, would she now be a United States senator, let alone the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination?
If Bill hadn’t fooled around with Monica, leading Hillary to blame the vast right-wing conspiracy only to discover that the accusations were right, would she have sold millions of copies of her book?
Will at least some Americans worry about the role that Bill would play in a second Clinton presidency?
Will all Americans, or at least those with a pulse, continue to gossip about their marriage if she runs?
This is not to take away from Hillary Clinton’s career or her abilities as an independent person. But if you are potentially running to be not just the first woman president but the first woman to follow her husband into the job, and his tenure was rocked by a sex scandal that led to his impeachment, how exactly do journalists conclude the subject is out of bounds?
Put me down in the Kurtz column…
If the subject is not out of bounds, at least try to make a point. What is the point of the article? If there is no point it is genuine muck. And, of course, the end of the article ends on a very positive note, which was most probably on a different page than A-1…
Is the point that they are calculating politicians? Why is this A-1 news? Is the point that it’s all a farce? Why is this A-1 news? If you are going to provide this much scrutiny to the Clinton’s, do the same for all other front runners and put it in one big article. Hell, make a table with pluses and minuses. Maybe throw some poll numbers in there for good measure. But, please, put this swill on the opinion page. Is there any denying that it is swill? The people like swill. It makes them feel good about themselves.
Kurtz says that if you’re alive (“Will all Americans, or at least those with a pulse, continue to gossip about their marriage if she runs?”), you must gossip about their marriage. How clever he is! If you have a pulse you must gossip about the Clinton’s marriage, otherwise, you’re dead! How funny he is! Put me down in the “to hell with Kurtz” column.
Furthermore, why would some Americans worry about Bill? All economic indicators were f’in fantastic. You’d think most Americans would be looking forward to it, as evidenced by his approval numbers…
Until recently, when she started taking potshots at Bush, I was pleasantly surprised at Hillary’s performance as a Senator. She is obviously intelligent, and obviously capable of learning and of working hard. Her husband has never set a foot wrong politically, and his political advice will be an asset to her, if she is smart enough to listen.
She is the most responsible of the Democrats, and the only one of presidential timber. Of course, the bar is awfully low. I could see myself voting for her, if the Republican candidate is as awful as some of them are.
Mike, if this is no issue, and people will be thrilled to have the Clintons back in the White House, why the apoplectic response to this story? Clearly this will be all water off the duck’s back, and Hillary will march to her cakewalk win no matter what the media gossips say.
I don’t think people are giving it much thought today because only us junkies are paying attention now. In the end, I don’t think the innuendo will amount to much, unless it really can be proved to be a sham marriage and that they’re deliberately lying to the American people about that. You may think that people shouldn’t care, but voters have a habit of making up their own minds about what they should and shouldn’t care about.
I agree that story was long on vague rumors and short on any actual facts. But Kurtz is right that pretending we shouldn’t talk about this stuff at all is ridiculous. Let’s remember, the main reason she’s a front runner is because of who she’s married to. Her status with her husband will inevitably be a major part of her presidency, should she win.
Confusing what might be relevant in theory as answering whether this actual story is
Kurtz appears to confuse that a story might be relevant given its topic in theory, with the conclusion that this actual story that was run is relevant and appropriate. He confuses the statement that the Clinton marriage is news with the conclusion that the they spent X weekends together over X+ Y weeks is news.
“If Hillary hadn’t been married to Bill, would she now be a United States senator, let alone the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination?”
If GW Bush hadnt been the son of G HW Bush, would he have been the Governor of Texas, let alone the President of the United States?
Perhaps we should have more speculative pieces about the relationship troubles between the President and his father? How about 3000 words about their troubled relationship and how the Presidents quest to avoid his fathers mistakes have led him to fall into many new ones. Sure it would be speculative and based on rumor and innuendo, but then again so was the hit piece on Clintons marriage.
The reason there is a response to the story is because, (like Mark says in another thread about a different topic), it’s editorializing on page A f’in 1. If they want to editorialize, go ahead, but there is no substance to the story (AS WRITTEN) and it doesn’t belong on A-1. Do you agree at least that the story, as written, doesn’t belong on A-1?
It may just be a lede to say something in the future like “Even with the question about the Clinton’s political marriage…” and they’ll just mention that in passing for the next several months as though it’s somehow relevant to the next topic when, yes, it might be passingly relevant, but there is no reason when discussing policy issues to mention that over and over which I predict is what will be done. The constant reminder will be inserted in other stories and it’s a damn shame.
And no, the media shape’s the public’s image of a person, even if it’s a few thousand people per day, that adds up by election day of ‘08.
“unless it really can be proved to be a sham marriage and that they’re deliberately lying to the American people about that.” What if they’re lying to themselves, does that mean they’re lying to us? That’s a rhetorical. But, like I said, voters care about what is reported on, that is why a free press is very necessary and right now it’s not quite as free as it ought to be.
You know, I think it shows much more character that Hillary forgave Clinton for his shortcomings as a man and continues to stick with him, even if it is purely political. It would have been much more politically convenient for her to leave him, I think. Why is it not framed in this manner on page A-1? It’s not only the story being told, it’s the frame from which it is told.
—You know, I think it shows much more character that Hillary forgave Clinton for his shortcomings as a man and continues to stick with him, even if it is purely political. It would have been much more politically convenient for her to leave him, I think.–
Puleez. The Feminist hero chooses to remain with a man who can not and/or will not keep his pecker in his pants no matter how destructive it is to the people around him?
Would it not be politically convenient to leave him? Which one is more beneficial for her? To remain with him and be subject to intense scrutiny or to leave him and say she is starting a new life, blah blah blah? Which one is an easier political play? Seriously? Has it occurred to you they actually love each other? Do you think he’s had another affair since Monica? What was that, 10 years ago?
mikebdot, don’t ask that last question – seriously. Are you aware of Clinton’s history with women, going back to the days when he would have Arkansas state troopers arrange his liasons? Remember that the whole Lewinsky affair came to light because he perjured himself in a suit brought by ANOTHER woman he persued that just happened to not be his wife. Now, you can choose to say none of this matters, but if you think his zipper problem disappeared, you are going against everything we know of human nature…
Well, who knows — it is certainly possible that having a heart attack could change your priorities –
Anything’s possible – I find it highly improbable…
The marriage aspect is a question precisely because Clinton’s behavior and if the NYT’S is willing to do a slight expose on the subject suggests that those in the news media who attend and cover events Bill attends are well aware of Bill’s behavior and realize that no matter if we care or not it will be a campaign issue. Period.
In essence, Bill will not keep his pecker in his pants and it is mighty hard to pretend he does.
Personally, I think the piece was a buffer.
More politically convenient to leave him? You have got to be joking…staying with Bill put him in her back pocket forever, not to mention the rich and deep pool of resources, contacts, and favors due to her husband by certainly thousands in the Democratic party and Washington bureacracy. All of those are now at her disposal. To leave Bill would have burned most of those bridges. Likewise, staying with Bill shows Hillary’s “commitment to family”, and don’t be surprised to see some kind of “I believe in the importance of the institution of marriage because I stayed with my husband when I didn’t have to” (or something to that effect) when the Federal Marriage Amendment is debated next month (that’s not to say she will vote for it, but I would be surprised if she didn’t use it as a platform to proclaim her commitment to family values).
The lives of Presidents, past and present, will be front-page news in this country for as long as it’s around. We still hear about how Richard Nixon said nasty things about Jews, and so on. Anyone who doesn’t think the private lives of public figures isn’t news or doesn’t matter didn’t pay attention to the Jim McGreevy scandal in New Jersey. Character does matter, and the question here, posed by a New York newspaper about a New York Senator is to what extent has the very public Clinton relationship influenced the politics of their state and the country. Speculative? Yes, but no more so than any piece on an important candidate speculating on the possible factors that person’s influence will have on the office to which they hope to win election.
I heard a FOAF story while he was in the hospital (Columbia Presbyterian, I think) recovering from the bypass surgery that he was hitting on the nurses. But he probably wasn’t in much of a position to act on any impulses at the time.
Well, Catch22, there have been many speculative pieces on just that topic, often contrasting their directions on Iraq, their respective electoral fates, etc. Many delve into just the kind of armchair psychology that usually permeates stories on the Clintons. The notion that Bill and Hillary Clinton are somehow being singled out just doesn’t wash.
The only thing that singles them out is the reality that if she wins, it’ll be the first time that a former president has re-entered the daily life of a White House. That’s something that’s never happened before, and even beats the oddness of a son succeeding the man who defeated his father. That is news, even if you didn’t have the added complication of the fact that Bill Clinton has shown himself to treat his wife quite shabbily. It’s an inescapable soap opera which most definitely strays from the realm of home life to the world of politics, and if people don’t want it, than they’re probably going to have to look for another candidate, rather than hope no one will mention it.
Fair enough Mike, but you were the one arguing that given Clinton’s approval numbers and the economy under his watch, people would be looking forward to his return and wouldn’t have any interest in stories like this one. So which is it?
Are you aware of George Bush’s history with beer? Sex, booze, what’s the difference? No, I’m not completely serious, but only somewhat.
But, I do want to know how you would answer the following questions:
Do you think Bill has had an affair in the past 10 years?
Do you care if he has?
Why is it somehow a political benefit for Hillary to stay with him? Would it not be much more of a benefit to dump him and start a ‘new life’ or say some other such jingoism? I think THAT would be a much easier political play and wouldn’t stress them the hell out either.
Do you think they love each other? Why is this question not the most important one when discussing this matter? It should be the only important question.
Dennis: Wasn’t saying that there should be NO interest in this. I think it should be discussed, with, perhaps actual quotes from the Clinton’s themselves (outside of speeches). How novel that would be! But the NYT piece was fodder.
My point in mentioning Clinton as a positive was that Kurtz says “Will at least some Americans worry about the role that Bill would play in a second Clinton presidency?” I was suggesting it could have been asked “Do most Americans think that Hillary’s policies will reflect that of her husband and thus think the economy will do well?” Or some other such question. All his questions are framed in a negative light. Why not frame them positive? Because then he would be accused of liberal bias? Maybe. But the prism from which it is viewed will be on Bill’s misdeeds, not Hillary’s forgiveness (which, apparently is unfathomable for some of you). Serious discussion indeed.
Yes, I think Bill Clinton has had an affair this month, since you ask. But that’s pure speculation and speculation only.
The difference with George W. Bush and beer is he publicly admitted his problem, sought treatment, found religion and changed his life – and openly talks about all of the above. Contrast that with wagging a finger on national television and saying ‘Get this straight – I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN’…it’s not the same…one admits and improves, one lies and denies…
Do you think Bill has had an affair in the past 10 years? Don’t know, wouldn’t be surprised. A good friend, who happens to be a woman, says “Once a dog, always a dog.”
Do you care if he has? Absolutely not.
Why is it somehow a political benefit for Hillary to stay with him? Because Bill Clinton is beloved by a super-majority of the political left. Not necessarily by the electorate left, but certainly by those who wield power in the Democrat party. And Hillary’s political ambitions are greatly enhanced by her ability to leverage that power – which continuing to have a relationship with Bill gives her.
Do you think they love each other? Don’t know, suspect they do, but fear it is at some sort of non-romantic, utilitarian level.
Wasn’t there talk when he was president that she was wearing the pants in the family? I don’t think staying with him does anything for her. She could easily stand alone and it may even benefit her more to do so because if she had reacted by leaving him immediately I think 90% of women would vote for her (which they may do regardless of what she does…I suppose I defeated my own argument…oh well.
). TMS, on rest of points, I agree wholeheartedly, but don’t see a need for the media to cover those points as serious political meat.
Yeah, the Times piece smells abit of that old journalistic tactic whereby every article about HC begins thusly:
“Hillary Clinton – wife of former President Bill Clinton, a womanizer, who lied to a federal grand jury about various episodes of infidelity in his marriage, who had an affair in the Oval Office with a 23 year old female intern, and who was subsequently impeached in the Congress of the United States of America – today announced…”
“Do you think he’s had another affair since Monica?”
When I lived in Aspen a few years back, Bill made a visit and was hitting on EVERYTHING that moved in that town. We all knew it, it was an open topic among the locals (Aspen is to the left of Trotsky, BTW). My wife worked at the hotel where he was staying, and saw his activites up close and personal – needless to say, not surprising in the least.
Add to this the fact that they’ve been leading completely separate lives, including different domiciles (Hillary in upstate, Bill in Harlem), and it’s not a stretch to say that it’s a marriage of convenience at this point. Only a fool would argue otherwise – a zebra doesn’t change its stripes.
Sorry I’m a fool dmac.
Re: Two items
1) News or opinion page: Since when is opinion relegated to the opinion page?
2) Is it news: Would Barbara Bush humping the help make the front page as news?
Seriously, Sir Charles may not be a role model, but the First Couple are at least supposed to try. Either the POTUS or the First Spouse banging the help is both news and a bad thing. Popularizing oral sex is somebody else’s job…if you get my drift?