10/24/00 5:25 p.m.
Hillary: Who’s to Blame?
The press, the people, and the Lazio team.

he good news is that this may well be the last column I ever have to write about First Lady Hillary Clinton. The bad news is that it is still quite possible that there will be plenty of columns to come, about Senator Clinton and, heaven help us, President Hillary and (shudder) First Gentleman William Jefferson Clinton. And while I would rather spend eternity in the ninth circle of Hell with the cast of Cats than endure another Clinton presidency of any kind, the real tragedy is that Hillary may win her Senate bid by default.

Right now, Rep. Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton are in a statistical dead heat. This is good news for the forces of truth and light, considering that Hillary was up 6 to 8 points just a week ago. Alas, it's not great news because Lazio's standing hasn't actually improved at all. Rather, Hillary has dropped in the polls, largely because New York's indispensable Jewish community is rethinking a candidate famous for telling Palestinian audiences what they want to hear and hugging the wife of Yassir Arafat — after Mrs. Arafat accused Jews of committing various crimes against humanity.

Still, if Hillary wins, three parties will deserve the blame — or the credit — for her victory. The first, of course, are the people of New York. To be brutally honest, I cannot figure out why this race is even close. The gestation period for an elephant is 22 months, which is apparently six months longer than it takes to incubate a New York Senator. In her year and a half in New York State, Hillary Clinton has managed to dupe a sizable number of New Yorkers into believing the candidate with the most "concern" is more worthy of being Senator. It remains a mystery to me why "concern" should matter more than being right on the issues. If I'm more concerned about the answer, does that mean 2 plus 2 can equal a chicken? By any reasonable measure, Lazio — being a member of the majority party in the Senate and a moderate — should be able to deliver just as well as the junior Democratic senator from New York.

Besides, the only concern Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated is her concern with winning. If she actually cared for New Yorkers, one might find some evidence in the record that she gave a damn about the state prior to her husband's difficulties two years ago. There is none. Her health-care plan was, by all accounts (including Pat Moynihan's), a terrible threat to New York hospitals.

The next bunch deserving blame is the Lazio campaign itself. For some reason, Lazio media strategist and non-New Yorker Mike Murphy, formerly of the McCain campaign, can't get rid of his McCain playbook. Indeed, the Lazio campaign has at times seemed something of a summer-stock performance of the McCain Broadway production — minus the success, enthusiasm, and good press.

The first thing Murphy did when he signed on was launch the Lazio "Mainstream Express," which we were supposed to believe was entirely different from the McCain "Straight Talk Express." Lazio was also pushed, it seems, to make soft money a major theme. As this didn't actually work for McCain, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it didn't work for Lazio either. The key to the McCain campaign's success was McCain. Murphy has done some things right, to be sure, including encouraging Lazio to be tough but fair with Clinton on her flip-flops, inconsistencies, and considerable record of not having a real record. Unfortunately, disengaged New Yorkers aren't paying attention and Lazio can't do this necessary work on his own.

Which brings us to the third and most irresponsible of contributors to the potential Hillary victory: the mainstream press. Whatever happened to the notion that the New York media would eat Hillary alive? The reality is that — with a handful of exceptions — they have more closely resembled the Iraqi news service. To date, Hillary has been asked no more than a few truly tough questions. When the full report from the independent counsel's office came out last week, it made it clear that Mrs. Clinton lied under oath (causing New York Times columnist William Safire to call Mrs. Clinton a "habitual prevaricator"). But Mrs. Clinton refuses to answer any questions about it, saying, "I really have nothing to add to that."

Recall that despite her supposedly unprecedented role in the government, our "co-president" First Lady held only one pink-sweatered press conference in the White House, refusing to answer hundreds of relevant questions. In New York, she hasn't been much better. She avoids the press at all turns and dismisses them when they occasionally break through. She was recently asked by journalist (and National Review Online contributor) Deroy Murdock about whether or not she advised her husband to veto a recent U.N. resolution condemning Israel. She responded, "That question doesn't even deserve a response. I've said all I have to say about that."

That the New York media, New Yorkers generally, and the Lazio campaign let her get away with such contempt is a scandal. Mrs. Clinton promises that her concern makes her more qualified to be a "fighter" and "defender" of New York. If that is true, then one wonders why she has refused every invitation to appear on a Sunday news show to defend her candidacy to become New York's defender-in-chief. Often she simply declines. Other times she sends out her feral-toothed spokesman Howard Wolfson to spin and attack.

If the Lazio campaign were asking for my advice — and I have it on good authority they're not — I would collect a montage of clips from the many interview shows Lazio has appeared on. I would take the clips where Sam Donaldson, Tim Russert, et al. say, "We invited Mrs. Clinton to appear here as well, but she declined." After a dozen or so examples, I would fade out and ask, "How can Hillary stand up for New York if she can't even stand up for herself?" Maybe the press and the people would take the hint. Then again, maybe not.