The New York Times exonerates Hillary Clinton on the charge that she called an aide a “f***ing Jew bastard.” That’s fine by me. I don’t think it would be that big a deal if she did say it. But I do think she said it. My reasons are simple: Three witnesses swear to it, she has a well-documented history of swearing like a Russian sailor drunk on rubbing alcohol, she comes from a background where people said these sorts of things, and she’s not very good on Jewish issues when she is not running for the Senate from the state of New York.
#ad#Now, I am perfectly willing to concede that an entirely reasonable person can look at the available facts and conclude that she did not say “you f***ing Jew bastard” 26 years ago. Unless you were in the room, it’s impossible to know for sure. In other words, we each take what we think are the relevant facts, and apply our own editorial judgment to their importance. That’s fine too.
But look at what the Times considers the relevant facts. “[The] circumstantial evidence inclines us strongly toward believing Mrs. Clinton when she says she never used such language,” write the Times’s editors in their lead editorial. What circumstantial evidence? “The alleged remark took place only a few years after Mrs. Clinton’s expansively humanistic commencement speech at Wellesley and soon after she had worked in a sophisticated legal environment for the impeachment of a president, Richard M. Nixon, who did use anti-Semitc language.”
That’s it. Those are the only two relevant facts offered by the Times. Sure, they say that the remark runs “counter to her public remarks and private political conversations.” But for facts, all we get is a Wellesley speech and the fact that she worked with a bunch of Jewish lawyers (“sophisticated legal environment” is NY Times code for a passel of smart, liberal, Jewish attorneys) in an attempt to bring down a possibly anti-Semitic president. Not only is she no anti-Semite, the Times reasons, she might as well be glatt kosher.
Okay, let’s take the easier one first. She gave an “expansively humanistic” speech when she graduated from college. How many expansively humanistic speeches had Jesse Jackson offered before he declared New York “Hymietown”? For that matter, how many speeches had Bill Clinton offered on the perils of sexual harassment before we learned he’d been bobbing for interns? Was Mrs. Clinton’s speech remarkable because it lacked for denunciations of Jews? Were the valedictory speeches of over-achieving left-wing girls at Harvard and Yale dripping with references to the Bilderbergers and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It is consistently astounding how liberals are willing to accept the idea that other liberals must always mean what they say, but conservatives never do.
As for this Nixon thing, . Somehow the Times considers it particularly relevant that Richard Nixon “did use anti-Semitic language.” Well, how does that square with their first bit of circumstantial evidence? After all, Nixon most certainly did not use anti-Semitic language in public. In fact, the public Nixon was an ardent supporter of the Jews, even though they didn’t vote for Republicans. It seems not implausible that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton would give a rat’s ass about the Jews if they did not rely on their votes and money. More to the point, Hillary Clinton didn’t know that Nixon was using anti-Semitic language when she worked on his impeachment. That revelation came years afterwards. The Times thinks it’s an important exoneration of Hillary because Nixon hatred is a Very High Virtue.
Now for my favorite bit of circumstantial evidence. The Times’ s editors suggest that anyone who worked with a bunch of nasty left-wing partisan out-to-get-Nixon lawyers — i.e. in a “sophisticated legal environment” — must have come away from the experience with a richer and more sincere appreciation of Jews and Judaism. I wish it worked that way. The Times staffers may remember the old “get Nixon” gang as a band of fellow Maccabees in search of justice, but it seems entirely possible that a low-ranking Midwestern coffee-fetching girl-feminist could have drawn a different impression at the time. After all, the poster child for anti-Semitism, in my eyes, is Alan Dershowitz.
If Hillary Clinton said “you f***king Jew bastard,” I don’t think it confirms Hillary’s anti-Semitism. Rather it confirms what I always believed: She is a nasty piece of work who will say anything if it will achieve her aims. A year ago, she said Palestine should be a state, because she was talking to Palestinians. These days she says Jews are the greatest thing since sliced Matzos, because she needs Jews. And, 26 years ago, she said “you f***ing Jew bastard” because she wanted to hurt someone’s feelings. What Jewish voters need to ponder is what she might say if the day comes when she thinks she can do without Jewish voters.