|
 he late NBC anchorman
John Chancellor was clearly on his way out nine years ago when Bill
Clinton was on his way
in. His out-to-pasture commentary spots were littered with more
conventional wisdom than anywhere this side of Bob Schieffer; whether
he invented the phrase or borrowed it, he called Clinton the "Razorback
Rasputin." I've always envied the coinage.
At the end of the Clinton presidency, all the media elite had left
to celebrate was Clinton's talent at survival through scandal after
scandal, stoked with hourly outputs of chutzpah. But how
much of his survival came from his own raw talents, and how much
of it came from an endless supply of media oxygen? We're about to
find out.
Al Hunt, the Wall Street Journal's out-to-pasture John Chancellor
equivalent, and always a willing vessel (or vassal) for the Democratic
establishment, is calling a new tune in his Journal column
this morning. "The Democrats' Albatross: For the good of his party,
Clinton should disappear." Did I hear glass breaking in Chappaqua
this morning? "Congressional Democrats have a message for former
President Clinton: Drop dead for at least the next six months,"
reported Al. "It's not bad advice for Sen. Hillary Clinton, either."
Come again? Just weeks ago, the media elite was lamenting how Al
Gore didn't have the good sense to connect himself at every opportunity
to Clinton and his shining legacy. Now it seems that Democrats have
suddenly discovered that the Clintons are, as Hunt relates it, "arrogant,
self-absorbed hustlers." Hunt disparages those "horrendous pardons,"
and Clinton's growing ability to make lemons out of his limelight.
But if the Clintons are arrogant and amoral, what does that make
their defenders of a decade? Why is Al Hunt suddenly playing Alan
Funt, hosting the political equivalent of "Candid Camera"?
As Hunt lowers himself into the asp pit of "Clinton haters" à la
Indiana Jones, he feels it necessary denounce his new compadres:
"As always, the Clinton critics go overboard. Some of the allegations
— that the Clintons trashed the White House and Air Force One,
or that his executive orders were illicit — are largely baseless.
The motives of some detractors are suspect: Sen. Arlen Specter is
publicity-crazy; Rep. Dan Burton is just crazy. But like the broken
clock that is still correct twice a day, they're right that Mr.
Clinton badly abused his unlimited pardon powers in the case of
Mr. Rich and others." (Time's Jack E. White also donned this
reflexive "hater"-hating tack, attacking Clinton because "he's giving
these people like Bob Barr another excuse to get up in front of
the public and pontificate endlessly about these problems.")
But if Hunt is right that the Clintons are "arrogant, self-
| “If
liberals claim to be so outraged at Clinton's arrogant,
hustling, self-absorbed last acts, they ought to be reminded
who left him in place to perpetrate them.” |
|
absorbed
hustlers," are these qualities they've only recently displayed,
or have they been this way for years? And if they've been this way
for years, aren't Al Hunt and his liberal colleagues the broken
clocks with suspect motives who are stumbling into being right?
Take an (albeit painful) trip down Memory Lane to see what I'm getting
at. On May 4, 1994, as Paula Jones prepared to sue Clinton for sexual
harassment, Hunt stepped away from his previous waving of the "I
Believe Anita" flag and betrayed his modus operandi: "This
woman, I have no idea about the details, she has been used as sort
of a puppet by the right, by the political right that wants to discredit
Clinton, which I think certainly detracts from her credibility."
Hunt had "no idea about the details," but why should journalists
have to wait for the facts before establishing which party in this
lawsuit had credibility? Paula Jones had made her charges in February,
but in May, Hunt still had "no idea about the details." Could that
explain why he only now discovered Clintonian corruption in 2001?
Lots of people jumped off the "Clinton's-a-smear-victim" bandwagon
in 1998, when all the alleged "lies" about Clinton started to prove
correct. But four days before the Monica Lewinsky eruption, Hunt
was still disparaging Paula Jones on CNN: "I don't think it portends
much for Bill Clinton ... Instead of battling Clinton on the substantive
issues, there are some right-wing activists who keep thinking this
sleaze issue will be the magic wand for them. It hasn't worked before
and it's not going to work now. And the reason that the American
people don't much believe Paula Jones and don't much like Paula
Jones? She has become, I think, a pitiful pawn of some right-wing
activists." So, who looked like a "pitiful pawn" when the President
ponied up $850,000 and then surrendered his law license for five
years?
Hunt's piece today wasn't all criticism. He tried to advise Clinton
to act more like ex-president Nixon (doh!), and suggested that,
while Clinton may have been (only partially) motivated by a desire
to please campaign contributors, "The system is corrupt." It can't
be Clinton or his aides that are corrupt. Otherwise, how does it
look when you can always rewind those C-SPAN tapes and see Hunt
slapping Harold Ickes on the back after one of Harold's "I have
no memory of that" marathons?
Hunt's column is not the work of an ethical Archimedes ("Eureka!
Paula Jones was right!"), and it's certainly not an apology to the
working clocks. It's a cry for help from Democrats who, despite
having elevated Clinton's hand-picked ethics-skirting fundraiser
to their party chairmanship, suddenly want to throw Clinton overboard.
As Hunt concludes with a nod and a wink to his sources: "the Democrats
do have comparatively able spokesmen in congressional leaders Tom
Daschle and Dick Gephardt. Their biggest obstacle is proving to
be not George W. Bush but his predecessor."
With Hunt as their town crier, the same Democrats who voted unanimously
against Clinton's impeachment, the same sycophants who stood in
the Rose Garden behind Clinton and applauded Al Gore as he placed
Clinton next to Washington and Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents,
are now posing as this Rasputin's assassins. If they all claim to
be so outraged at Clinton's arrogant, hustling, self-absorbed last
acts, they ought to be reminded who left him in place to perpetrate
them.
|
