Interesting Profile of Hillary in POLITICO

Sorry to post and run...

What’s Really Ailing Hillary

Interestingly, this guy who covered her during Bill's administration seems to have admiration for her. To me, what he says seems inconsistent with favorability:

“Everyone has a blind spot, but in the case of the Clintons and the press, it’s a Jackson Pollock,” another former White House aide says, suggesting that great blobs obscure their vision across a wide canvas. “The most ironic thing about this is that she worked on the Watergate Committee. One would think that experience would sear into you the idea that the coverup can have far worse effects than the action. Or maybe that transparency makes sense. Or that it’s worth taking the hit up front instead of letting the fight go the full 15 rounds and end up bloodied and beaten. For some reason— despite extraordinary evidence to the contrary—they don’t get it.”

So Clinton would feel entitled to believe she is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t—a sentiment she herself has expressed more than once. Twenty-three years ago, when The New York Times’ Kelly asked why she, as an unelected presidential spouse, should set herself the task of attempting to remake society, she jumped “hard on the point,” as he put it. The question is “irrelevant to me,” Clinton said then. “I know that no matter what I did—if I did nothing, if I spent my entire day totally disengaged from what was going on around me—I’d be criticized for that. I mean, it’s a no-win deal, no matter what I do, or try to do.”
Such fatalism predicts only one possible result: A plentiful lack of transparency, no matter what happens on Nov. 8. If Clinton loses the race to Trump, she’ll really learn what a “no-win deal” is, and she’d doubtless spend the rest of her days blaming a cynical media and partisan enemies, rather than her own personal judgment. If she wins, on the other hand, the victory will vindicate, in her mind, the stonewalling approach she’s taken for years. And the rest of us will no doubt bear witness to one of the least transparent administrations in American history.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

riverlover's picture

And her view that money=power and power=money seems to work for the Clintons. Not so good for the rest of us. Clintons like Bushes appear to portion people into friends and enemies. No other categories.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Citizen Of Earth's picture

This author treats the Clintons like they are victims of their own naivete.

That's bullshit. They are victims of their own crookedness. They robbed the White House silverware when they left after Slick Willy's term. No one learned the lesson apparently. The mountain of evidence that they are crooks is higher than Everest. And yet they are still not in prison. That's what boggles my mind.

up
0 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

TheOtherMaven's picture

thinks she sucks as a candidate. I think practically all of us are in agreement with the second half of that position. Biggrin

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

trip through SE Asia. Not surprising. He saw her as open-hearted and -minded, bright and full of Big Questions and even some answers.

What's interesting is that Hillary already had a public persona going back to Little Rock. And it was nothing like the person that Purdom recalls. He paints her as a little naive in those days. Perhaps he was the naive one.

up
0 users have voted.

she was not of the same deep opacity that she is today, and that's the point of the Politico article. And btw that's a horrible question Kelly from the Times asked, that you cited. Kelly, in that NYT article, reeked of contempt for HRC's transparent idealism and for what she was trying to achieve. Health care for all, that's what led RWNJs to target HRC.

Link to article

Context. It is the RWNJs and their crazy de$tructive knuckle-dragging practices that have driven all viable wanna-be honest public servants from our field of presidential choices. And they offer McNasty and effin Sarah Palin in lieu? Shut-Down Cruz and Little Marco? Trump? It started as a reality show for him, is my guess, but he's very serious now. The Politico article reminds us that it's more Kelly's fault than HRC's. It's the chess game, the game of thrones, the game of king-makers that's transparent now.

up
0 users have voted.

~annominous

hester's picture

It's more nuanced than than Purdam would have us believe. Imho. I'm glad I read both, as they gave me wider and deeper picture of her.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/23/magazine/saint-hillary.html?pagewanted...

up
0 users have voted.

Don't believe everything you think.

I shouldn't have taken the Politico article at face value. As you say, the NYT article is much more nuanced than the Politico article indicated.

up
0 users have voted.

~annominous