That Hillary Show

JUN. 8, 2003: H-HOUR

That Hillary Show

Sunday was of course H-Hour, H-Day across America. My wife was invited onto CNN’s “Late Edition” to discuss the Hillary book. I will not soon forget the look that passed over her face when Wolf Blitzer asked her, “Do you believe President Clinton when he said that it was sporadic and of short duration?” Our friend Mark Steyn would have heartily agreed, “Yes, Wolf, I’m sure it was of very short duration.” But Steyn writes for the British press, where you can say things like that ….

That Hillary Show Part II

On the same program, Margaret Carlson explained why Hillary’s memoir was marginally more candid than her previous statements about her marriage: “She’s taken $8 million, she has to show a little ankle …” Danielle, I’m proud to say, did restrain herself from adding, “or thong …”

That Hillary Show Part III

I refuse to insult my readers’ intelligence by wading into the silly debate over whether Hillary is telling the “truth” in her book. I treasure in this context the wonderful line I once heard from a New Yorker when he was asked to believe something manifestly unbelieveable: “Do I look like I’m from out of town?”

Here’s the question I find more interesting: Is Hillary telling the right lie?

Lay aside morality for a moment, and consider the world from Hillary’s point of view. You are an utterly opportunistic, wholly amoral person. You are married to Bill Clinton and are running for president in 2008. Now then – are your evil purposes better served by pretending to be a surprised, wronged wife who has at last forgiven Bill and “hope[s] to grow old with him”? Or do you ditch the bum and run as an independent person in your own right? Hillary’s betting on the first strategy, but I fear she's making a serious error. The whole “working on our marriage” strategy invites the voters to contemplate the prospect of a goatish 60-something Bill Clinton as an under-employed “First Gentleman” wandering around the White House orientation program for new interns …. No it’s too horrible. Lose Bill now, let People magazine do its “Hillary: Single – And Fabulous!” cover story, marry some respectable elderly widower with plenty of ultra-respectable money, and then run for president.

And the good news for the Washington legal community would be that with a rich new mate and the money from her book, next time she won’t be tempted to try to skip out on her lawyer’s bills!

That Hillary Show Part IV

Given Hillary’s repeated claims that she and former president Bill Clinton are committed to their marriage – given also that her book stands or falls by the plausibility of these claims – I’m surprised that Barbara Walters resisted the temptation to inquire in what sense the Clintons are married. I’m not proposing any Steyn-like prurience: only a very basic question like, “So when was the last time you and Bill had dinner alone together?”

News From Beyond the Beltway

Zimbabwe continues its horrific spiral toward ruin with another political prosecution. And see here for a heart-rending piece by a South African liberal about the ethnic cleansing of the continent’s white minorities – and the loss to Africa of the skills and knowledge that might have spared the continent some of its worst miseries.

Poland voted by an 81% margin to join the European Union this weekend, which is at least in the short term good news – it raises by one the number of reliable friends American can count inside the increasingly sinister EU.

It’s worth observing here that when President Bush spoke to the people of Poland on May 31, he did not call on them to vote “yes” in the referendum on the EU. Is this a subtle departure from US Euro-enthusiasm? If so, it’s high time - really, much past time.

Speaking of "Bogus"

While opponents of the Iraq war hurl charges of distorted intelligence at President Bush and PM Blair, it is emerging that in fact it is the opponents' top accusation that turns out to be - well - a lie. It now seems clear that Baghdad museum lost a grand total of 33 objects to looters in the first hours after the war, not 170,000 as the museum director originally claimed. Why did he say otherwise? "I was very angry at the Americans," he tells a reporter for the Washington Post. That seems to be the motive for quite a lot of untruths, doesn't it?

09:46 PM