TNR BLOGS

May 15, 2008 | 11:39 PM
May 15, 2008 | 8:03 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:26 PM

May 15, 2008 | 8:41 PM
May 15, 2008 | 7:06 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:35 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.04.2008
Hillary Clinton Knows...

...exactly what people think of her. Which is why, when asked by her own canvassers--according to a story by Jeff Zeleny and Katharine Q. Seelye in the New York Times--"what they should tell voters on her behalf," she answered, "Oh, just knock on the door and say, 'She is really nice'." "Or you could say, 'She is not as bad as you think'." Hillary really knows that people don't like her. "I am not as bad as you think."

Imagine going through life knowing people think you are... well, what do they really think of her? That she is haughty, that she is a know-it-all, that she is nasty, self-centered, self-righteous, unkind--no--actually mean, holier-than-thou, pompous, entitled, presumptuous, abusive... and I have not yet consulted Roget's. I can grasp that, if you've lived life knowing that's how your contemporaries, neighbors, even friends feel about you, you must be unhappy. And only someone so unhappy would rely on getting the nomination and winning the election to secure some semblance of happiness and satisfaction. In this sense (and in others, I believe, like having an "enemies list") she seems to me very much like Richard Milhous Nixon. People like that need desperately to add to their heft with a middle name: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Well, she is as bad as you may think. (Why did the censorious green underlining show up on my screen right under "as bad as you?") My proof:

Hillary as at the tail-end of the Pennsylvania primary campaign put out a TV spot that is the logical conclusion of her hopeless effort against Obama. Or, as Zeleny and Seelye report, "After a weekend of sharp exchanges, the Clinton campaign began airing a new television commercial featuring images of Osama bin Laden and the attack on Pearl Harbor, and closing with a terse question: 'Who do you think has what it takes?' "

Frankly, just because a politician can be mean to opponents does not mean that she or he can be decisive or even effective against enemies of the nation. And, indeed, when Osama and other terrorists came calling on his first visit to the World Trade Center in 1993, or to the Khobar Towers, or with bombs at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or with an assault on the USS Cole, killing hundreds and hundreds, President Clinton (under whom she ostensibly has been trained) and all his men and women flopped the test. Many of them are now Hillary's advisers. And especially: Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, an unsuccessful petty filcher.

And, in any case, with this shabby record, why would anyone claim to have been prepared by its codes and operatives?

Posted: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:44 PM with 44 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jacobt1 said:

" she is haughty, that she is a know-it-all, that she is nasty, self-centered, self-righteous, unkind--no--actually mean, holier-than-thou, pompous, entitled, presumptuous, abusive.."

Are you talking about Michelle Obama?

"Many of them are now Hillary's advisers. "

I guess you like Obama advisers ncluding  Samantha Power, Tony Lake, Susan Rice. ...

Marty, Can you defend Obama without being ridiculous?

April 21, 2008 7:44 PM

jacobt1 said:

"And, in any case, with this shabby record, why would anyone claim to have been prepared by its codes and operatives?"

Good question? So can you explain again, why did you support Al Gore?  

I support Hillary Clinton for the same reason I supported Al Gore

April 21, 2008 7:50 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Hamas & Obama: Terrorist flatter"

Monday, April 21, 2008

"Barack Obama's campaign has been "flattered" by Hamas terrorists. "

"Flattered."

"Last week a top official of the militant Palestinian group endorsed Sen. Obama. Ahmed Yousef told a New York radio station that "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle ... ." "

www.pittsburghlive.com/.../s_563184.html

April 21, 2008 8:38 PM

sabatia said:

While I am little surprised at Mr. Peretz typical comments,  I am shocked by actual video n another site of Sen. Clinton' primary Pennsylvania supporter Gov. Rendell. In the video, Gov. Rendell is spending time with and lavishing extensive praise on Rev. Farrahkan. Personally I am outraged that a prominent Clinton supporter could be so actively engaged in flattering a racist, anti-Semitic hate-mongerer.

I call on Sen. Hillary Clinton to insist that Governor Rendell immediately and forthwith reject and denounce Rev. Farrahkan.

I think this clearly shows that Hillary is again a bad judge of personal character and that she consorts with traitors to the Nation and the Jews who have the audacity to praise such divisive men as Farrahkan. To whit: Hillary is a racist, anti-Semite hatemonger. At least in my book.

April 21, 2008 9:33 PM

scrubbyoak said:

The Pittsburgh Tribune, jack? The same newsrag that, in the nineties, accused Hillary Clinton of killing Vince Foster, speculating they were also lovers. Did you believe them then?

Obama has flatly stated Hamas shouldn't be negotiated with. I guess that's why Yousef - the Hamas guy - likes him, right?

April 21, 2008 9:54 PM

turnipauto said:

"..she is haughty, that she is a know-it-all, that she is nasty, self-centered, self-righteous, unkind--no--actually mean, holier-than-thou, pompous, entitled, presumptuous, abusive.."

Are YOU unhappy?  Because the above dscriptors well describe many readers' impression of you.  I happen to agree with you a good percentage of the time--and I even found you charming at moments, on Charlies Rose--but you are most definitely a pot calling the kettle black.  Your disdain for Ms. Clinton reads best when grounded in issues.  It's noxious when bubbling over with ad hominem vitriol.

April 21, 2008 10:21 PM

jacksondyer said:

scrubbyoak I don't know the Pitsburgh tribune from the Boston Herald another paper I don't read.

Still, they didn't make up that story did they?

btw: never said that Obama accepted their endorsement, still it's interesting that they think Obama is on their side. I guess we shall  soon find out how wrong they are, will we not?

April 21, 2008 10:40 PM

jacksondyer said:

"I think this clearly shows that Hillary is again a bad judge of personal character and that she consorts with traitors to the Nation..."

Yes, Sabatia, she is a traitor to the Nation magazine. Too fucking bad!

As for Rendell, where is the link to the video?

April 21, 2008 10:42 PM

adamvaught said:

The best thing Marty Peretz could do for Barack Obama is to start supporting Hillary Clinton.This is another in a long line of embarrassing posts.

This primary has me considering voting for McCain were Clinton to get the nomination (at the end of the day I doubt I would, but I'd think seriously about it). But "[s]he is haughty, that she is a know-it-all, that she is nasty, self-centered, self-righteous, unkind--no--actually mean, holier-than-thou, pompous, entitled, presumptuous, abusive... and I have not yet consulted Roget's?" Such comments add nothing of merit, and hurt--not help--Obama's cause.  

Oh, and before you consult Roget's, consult Strunk and White.

April 21, 2008 10:56 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

If she cared that much about what other people thought of her she wouldn't be running for serious public office in the first place.

April 21, 2008 11:25 PM

dcshungu said:

Please do not get fooled. Marty Peretz cannot stand Obama, as he does not think that Obama could be trusted to keep Israel safe. The only thing more visceral than Marty's distrust of Obama is he hatred of Hillary. The outcome of the Dem contest is largely immaterial to Marty. Come the Fall, he would be rooting for John McCain, which actually makes me think that Marty does believe that Hillary would be the stronger Dem candidate against McCain, and must be stopped. In that light, he might care to see Obama prevail...

April 22, 2008 1:08 AM

hemlock41 said:

jackson: The video is posted here: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../rendell-praises.html

Rendell praises the Nation of Islam fulsomely in the video. But for some reason, it's okay for Clinton to throw the name "Farakhan" out in the last debate, after Obama has denounced and rejected him, and explained that he has *no* ties to the man. This was a move, on Clinton's part, that is as despicable as any used by the republican slime-machine's smear experts. Obama, none of whose official endorsers are known to be tied to Farakhan or to have praised Farakhan lavishly, is repeatedly expected to denounce and reject him while Clinton is not held to similar account by anyone. Talk about bias.

April 22, 2008 1:26 AM

hemlock41 said:

I agree with turnip's point, however, that Peretz's name-calling is disappointing and... not admirable. Clinton has grave substantive flaws as a presidential candidate, but the way to expose them is to reference the things that she has actually said and done in the campaign.

April 22, 2008 1:31 AM

matthawk said:

Good points about Hillary’s mean-spiritedness. You left out narcissistic. As you have pointed out, only a terribly unhappy person, who knows they are not liked, would throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at their opponent. She doesn’t have to care about being liked – it is all about winning.

However, I have to point out that Bobby Kennedy was also well aware of not being liked. But, unlike Hillary, he seemed to have a human core that would allow him to connect with young people, the poor, the oppressed – outsiders – even if everyone else misunderstood him.

But Hillary is no Bobby Kennedy. Hillary is (I know I have posted this argument too many times) the quintessential baby boomer who believes it is all about her. Nobody else matters. The Democratic Party doesn’t matter. On the one hand she whines for sympathy and claims to be some sort of victim; on the other hand there are no depths that are too low for her to sink if she thinks it will help her to land the nomination.

A can appreciate her disappointment in being passed up by someone who is younger and less immersed in policy wonkery than she is. But on the other hand, she’s the one who has chosen a career based on top-down politics rather than community organizing. She is the one who favors Washington lobbyists and the politics of partisanship and ideology.

People want, and are voting for, a change.

April 22, 2008 2:06 AM

dbhuff said:

C'mon, no body gets into politics unless you really want people to like you. Psychoanalyzing the candidates on this dimension isn't really going to provide much separation. Your first para was interesting, what HRC is telling her canvassaers. And perhaps there's something in the poor response to '93 bombing since many of the same people are around, but a lot of us spent much of the early 2000's talking about how Clinton was going after OBL and Bush was ignoring the advice of Clinton's team in this regards, so that's sort of a loser too.

Does she feel entitled? Well, no one has worked harder to become president, and yep its gotta sting that she's losing to this guy who came out of nowhere. But do people like her? I've also heard that a lot of people like her in person, just we don't get to see that in the campaign.

I'm a big BO supporter, just voted for him here in PA, but this isn't really insightful or helpful to his cause.

April 22, 2008 8:30 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

on this point peretz, you and Hillary actually share a bond: you're both people who have gone through life confronted by the nasty impressions of almost everyone who comes into your orbit and you both seem oblivious to that fact and the brutal reality that outside of family and a few friends, everyone thinks you're both stinkers.

In other words, everything you say about HC can be said about you...and worse...

April 22, 2008 9:17 AM

chmclean said:

matthawk -

Your comments are consistently insightful, well-reasoned, and well-written. I always enjoy reading them and agree with just about everything you post. You nail Clinton's character flaws without getting into name-calling and nastiness with her supporters. That's commendable as so many of Clinton's supporters get very personal very quickly.

Carol

April 22, 2008 9:51 AM

jacobt1 said:

matthawk,

"People want, and are voting for, a change."

They vote for Clinton.  Clinton got  majority of White, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish votes nationally. The only reason she gets only 10% of  Black vote   is because Blacks  vote for a favorite son.

April 22, 2008 10:34 AM

blackton said:

what, Marty said nasty words about Hillary? I am shocked, shocked at this. This is a first for him, right? Oh the outrage, oh the horror. How I feel for the readers here to come upon such an unexpected occurrence.

Come on people, lets stop the faux outrage.

jackson, you are surprised that a bunch of illiterate hamas goat molesters upon hearing Baracks full name (Hussein Osama whoops Obama) think he is somehow a fellow traveller?

April 22, 2008 10:35 AM

jacobt1 said:

chmclean,

"You [matthawk ] nail Clinton's character flaws without getting into name-calling"

matthawk said:

"Good points about Hillary’s mean-spiritedness. You left out narcissistic"

If this is not name-calling, what is ?

Why do all supposedly well educated Obama supporters lack elementary reading comprehension and reasoning skills?

April 22, 2008 10:40 AM

blackton said:

I want to apologize for the above aforementioned slur about goat buggery amongst the Bougainvillea by the Hamas bedouins. I am certain the goats, being underaged, are not in any way responsible. And generally, as they are used as an after coital dinner, much to be lamented.

April 22, 2008 10:41 AM

sabatia said:

Hemmy, Thank you for posting the link to Rendell affirming and praising Farrakahn.

I was being facetious in my post above. I guess it is the hypocritical use of wedge issues that irritates me. No good will come to our party or the nation through Hillary's use of wedge issues--Farrakahn, Ayers, Elitist, etc.

April 22, 2008 10:55 AM

jacobt1 said:

Why  Ayers is a wedge iussue?

I would hope that even Obama supporters want at least some degree of separation between a  commander-in-chief  and a person who wants to bomb Pentagon?

April 22, 2008 11:40 AM

jacobt1 said:

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_the_savior.html

"But then, saving souls is hard work, and Mrs. Obama won't place the whole burden on her husband. He'll make the Americans work for him. As she put it, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

At base, Mrs. Obama's statement is nothing less than a renunciation of democracy and an embrace of fascism. The basic idea of liberty is that people have a natural right to live their lives as usual and to be uninvolved and uninformed. And they certainly have a right to expect that their government will butt out of their souls."

April 22, 2008 11:48 AM

lymon1 said:

Marty, though you pimp the immense suffering of the genocide victims of Darfur to settle your petty political scores (but never to advocate for them), maybe you're not as bad as I think.  

No, you're that bad.  By the way, if we counted all the positive reasons you've given to vote FOR obama vs. the negative reasons to vote AGAINST hillary clinton, what would the ratio be?  The only thing more rare on the spine than an actual favorable statement on Obama is you parting with some cash to help with the campaign -- no, that you leave for his younger supporters I suppose.  

April 22, 2008 11:57 AM

phattwizat said:

jacobt1,

"They vote for Clinton.  Clinton got  majority of White, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish votes nationally. The only reason she gets only 10% of  Black vote   is because Blacks  vote for a favorite son."

I guess thats why she is ahead in delegates and the popular vote.

April 22, 2008 1:29 PM

jacobt1 said:

phattwizat ,

Corrrect.

April 22, 2008 1:50 PM

hemlock41 said:

I understood you were being a bit facetious, sabatia. And I agree that using wedge issues is bad all around. Still, the Rendell-praising-Nation-of-Islam thing bothers me as an example of double standards. I'd never expect/ask Clinton to "denounce and reject" him because of this speech... *except* for the fact that she is smearing Obama by way of his supposed (tenuous and flimsy) associations.

I realize the Obama campaign has not been pure and holy in all its campaign tactics, that they've stooped to 'politics as usual' at various points; but the Clintons have gone so far beyond the pale, it's disgusting. Going directly to the right wing smear machine (Bill's interview with Rush; Hillary's with Scaife) to enlist its help in attacking Obama? Disgusting. Pushing the ultra flimsy Ayers association when Bill *pardoned* two Weather Underground members, and then refusing to address these pardons? Disgusting. Slamming Obama for a memo that the Canadian govt subsequently announced was inaccurate, in which a volunteer Obama advisor was described as contradicting him, when Clinton's own chief strategist and husband were being paid by foreign governments for helping advance free trade deals? Disgusting. The list goes on and on.

April 22, 2008 2:01 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Frankly, just because a politician can be mean to opponents does not mean that she or he can be decisive or even effective against enemies of the nation. And, indeed, when Osama and other terrorists came calling on his first visit to the World Trade Center in 1993, or to the Khobar Towers, or with bombs at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or with an assault on the USS Cole, killing hundreds and hundreds, President Clinton (under whom she ostensibly has been trained) and all his men and women flopped the test. Many of them are now Hillary's advisers. And especially: Madelaine Albright and Sandy Berger, an unsuccessful petty filcher."  Marty Peretz

Really?

"Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked

5 hours ago

CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania (AFP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic was ever "reckless" enough to ever launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton gave the undertaking in an interview broadcast Tuesday, and then expanded on her remarks after meeting voters at a polling station in Pennsylvania, which was holding its presidential primary.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton told ABC News, when asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Later, Clinton told reporters in Conshohocken, outside Philadelphia, that Iran must be made aware of the "high price" it would have to pay for any nuclear strike."  Hillary Clinton

afp.google.com/.../ALeqM5gWgSBd8knYlaq-D0zQjSHKiT2nAQ

April 22, 2008 2:23 PM

hemlock41 said:

jackson:  If this kind of late-in-the-game political play on Clinton's part is why you support her, so be it.

April 22, 2008 2:50 PM

jacksondyer said:

hemlock41, you are not paying attention.

I have been a supporter of Hillary since before Iowa.

April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

hemlock41 said:

Sorry, Jackson. I'm relatively new here. But "kind" and "play" were the operative words in my post. I meant, if you're going to place great significance on this kind of statement, without allowing for thefact that every aspect of her fractured message is poll-tested and calculated to be a pitch to some minute slice of voters, with little regard for the overall consistency or coherence of her policy vision, or for any underlying principles/rationale, etc, then so be it. She's at a point in the game where she's having to say stronger and stronger things to get people's attention. We'll see whether she spins and back-pedals from these kinds of statements if and when she wins.

April 22, 2008 4:05 PM

check said:

watched canadian news today with gov  rendel who was asked who was better bill or hillary. hillary of course at this point because she is so prepared.  bill, apparently, was totally unprepared on day one.  obviously he was making a statement about obama.  then how did bill become such a great president for the dems, never asked.  but the glory of hillary was well stated over and over.  this guy is such a pig, a perfect gov for the state that loves its beer and guns.

April 22, 2008 4:08 PM

jkolic said:

Marty, you would do well to steer clear of attaching various noxious personality characteristics to Hillary. It only makes the reader recall that old adage that it takes one to know one.

I had promised myself that I would not launch into a rant because it is simply pointless to debate anything Hillary - related with someone as imbued with visceral hatred of her as yourself. However, I cannot resist it. If every single one of her contemporaries hate her so (and, no doubt, you have met them all and can therefore construct such a sweeping generalization), why has she received enough votes and support to still stay in the race? Why are people voting for someone they perceive to be as flawed as you so venomously put it in your blog?

I have read some accounts regarding her life and, much as it galls you to hear this, I will point it out nonetheless - plenty of Clinton friends have highest regard for Hillary. They praise her intelligence and speak with affection of her wit (yes, she appears to have a sense of humor. Who knew?). They admire her tenacity and respect her dedication to politics. And let me be the first to say - I, a contemporary of hers, do not see, nor have I ever seen, her in a manner you describe. Please recall that simple fact next time you consider issuing another ad-hominem-attacks-rich epistle dealing with levels of regard/respect for her figure and work.  

April 22, 2008 5:28 PM

jacksondyer said:

"without allowing for thefact that every aspect of her fractured message is poll-tested "

Sorry, but that is true for all candidates.

Hillary's positions have changed substantially since she started running.

April 22, 2008 5:46 PM

mollysimon said:

Hemlock,  "She's at a point in the game where she's having to say stronger and stronger things to get people's attention."  Exactly.

Blackton, "Come on people, lets stop the faux outrage. jackson, you are surprised that a bunch of illiterate hamas goat molesters upon hearing Baracks full name (Hussein Osama whoops Obama) think he is somehow a fellow traveller?"  Thank you for that one.  I was about to rip into Jackson, but you did it so much better--and calmly that that.  

By the way, could somebody here please explain to me why Carter keeps persisting with these monsters?  I'd love for somebody to offer up a psychological profile of this boob.

April 22, 2008 6:08 PM

mollysimon said:

Jackson, "Hillary's positions have changed substantially since she started running."  So you agree about her.  Sorry to wake you up on this one, though, but other than Obama's pandering to the anti-NAFTA crowd, his positions have remained remarkably in tact.  

Funny, too, how some people lambasted Obama for saying he'd bomb parts of Pakistan, but let Hillary off the hook when her rhetoric, which has been stepped up and is far more frightening than anything Obama has said.

As for your blatant insinuations about Obama and Hamas, that's taking it a bit far.  Though perhaps the only way  you can win this one is to step up your own rhetoric, a la her highness, Hillary.  

April 22, 2008 6:17 PM

mollysimon said:

Jackson, "Hillary's positions have changed substantially since she started running."  So you agree about her.  Sorry to wake you up on this one, though, but other than Obama's pandering to the anti-NAFTA crowd, his positions have remained remarkably in tact.  

Funny, too, how some people lambasted Obama for saying he'd bomb parts of Pakistan, but let Hillary off the hook when her rhetoric, which has been stepped up and is far more frightening than anything Obama has said.

As for your blatant insinuations about Obama and Hamas, that's taking it a bit far.  Though perhaps the only way  you can win this one is to step up your own rhetoric, a la her highness, Hillary.  

April 22, 2008 6:17 PM

boneill said:

Also, jackson- hhere is Axelrod's full quote, which, for some reason, Scaife's paper left out.

"I like John Kennedy too," Axelrod said. "That's about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

He was clearly being a little glib, which is irritating at this stage in the race, but he didn't say "That's very flattering!  Thanks, hamas!  Anything we can do for you guys?"

April 22, 2008 6:22 PM

jacksondyer said:

Jackson, "Hillary's positions have changed substantially since she started running."  

Sorry, I meant to type, Hillary's positions have NOT changed substantially since she started running."  

April 22, 2008 9:18 PM

jacksondyer said:

"As for your blatant insinuations about Obama and Hamas, that's taking it a bit far."

What insinuations? Hamas endorsed Obama, that's a fact.  Does that make you feel uncomfortable, Molly?

btw: I never said that Obama endorsed Hamas.

April 22, 2008 9:19 PM

jacksondyer said:

boneill, again, never said that Obama supports Hamas.

I was also, btw, amused that Hamas said they liked Kennedy since that President was very pro-Israel and that was before there was such a thing as AIPAC.

April 22, 2008 9:22 PM

Annabella2 said:

One of you asked for the site of Governor Rendell praising Farrakhan.  Here it is:

www.dailykos.com/.../500497

Wright praised Farrakhan for the same reasons as Governor Rendell did and Obama got a great deal of heat from certain segments of the Jewish community for it.  Wright's position was attributed to Obama despite the fact that he has expressly and repeatedly distanced himself from it and spoken out in Black churches against anti-antisemitism.

Governor Rendell does the same thing, but Hillary is not deemed guilty by association on that score.  By the way, someone has suggested to me that Governor Rendell is himself Jewish.

I guess all that I am saying by all of this is why would anyone want to hold Obama to a stricter standard  on this issue than candidates such as Hillary, Rendell, McCain even... although Obama seems to have taken the more consistent and principled position on this issue.

Given, Governor Rendell's fulsome praise of Farrakhan... Rendell praises Farrakhan for the "integrity of his belief; the decency of his soul; and the intensity of his courage" perhaps one should try to engage him on the issues of anti-antisemitism and see if one can not change his mind.

April 23, 2008 12:39 AM

mollysimon said:

Jackson, that has got to be one of the most disingenuous sentences you've ever written.  

April 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.