As recently as two months ago -- Sept 6, 2007 -- Broder wrote that the Clintons' marriage was the most important political fact about Hillary. "Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble," Broder wrote. "She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder."
Well, no shit, Sherlock. There are some -- inside the Beltway even! -- who swear anonymously that the Return of the Clenis is part of Hillary!s dynastic inevitability. Apparently (and don't tell the current occupant about this phenomenon) a certain number of mopes find it easier to simply renew their subscriptions than check out different magazines, or even a book. Broder should be thrilled to draw a paycheck for such tedious observations, since an average fifth-grader could come up with them for nothing.
But let us put Broderella's latest case o' the vapors in context.
On May 25, 2006, Broder devoted nearly a whole column to that notorious front-page piece by Pat Healy in The Times that documented the state of their marriage in almost comically absurd detail. Broder was very sympathetic to the piece, saying that it showed that "the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president." If Broder thought the Clinton wasn't fair game here in any way -- or disapproved of the level of attention The Times gave to the Clinton marriage in that piece -- he certainly didn't say so.
And back when it really counted -- when the GOP tried to impeach Bill Clinton over his affair -- Broder thought the Clinton marriage was completely fair game. He wrote multiple columns at the time arguing that his affair threw his entire character and even fitness for the Presidency into question.
They all did. Some of them even had a point -- getting blowjobs from the help is something you expect from Guns 'n' Roses, not the occupant of the West Wing. It was tawdry and off-putting, if completely unworthy of reproaches as serious as impeachment, and effectively grinding government to a halt for the remainder of Clinton's term.
But they went on and on and on about it, each one-upping the last with more and more ponderous verdicts, heedless of the practical consequences, long after there was any point to any of it. And now we are where we are, because these pud-whackers can't stop with their knuckle-shuffle. And we can't get enough of it.
Suddenly a candidate who is running overtly on issues of character and judgment is blessedly exempt from scrutiny in those things. He made a point of embarrassing his second wife; his best buddy was a mobbed-up prick who apparently felt entitled to stick his cock in everything within a hundred yards. His own children don't speak to him and won't vote for him. Does this tell you something about how he does things, is there a pattern worth noticing here?
On the one hand, we don't really want to keep up this habit of digging through the neighbor's garbage, trying to dig up something ugly while acting all Simon-pure. On the other hand, this is all already public knowledge. Now Broder wants to take the high road and avoid all that. For now, anyway; he knows as well as anyone that his profession is that of the herd, and that if he doesn't stroke the cheating asshole issue everyone else will be happy to leave him behind.
And in a profession where the appearance of relevance is the real currency, the only thing that matters when the rest of the kewl kidz pull out their Members Only jackets is to follow suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment