Susan Estrich's awful "Hillary" book.
Yesterday, I was telling a reader about what I think is one of the most essential, unappreciated truths of American politics: that out of the fetid mess of corrupting forces, mismatched incentives and analytic frivolity that characterizes the two-party US system, the Democratic Party consistently produces damn good -- as in fundamentally decent, serious -- leaders. Not just presidential candidates either, though the post-'68 McGovern-Fraser reforms (that helped open up the primary process to rank and file liberals and activists rather than leaving it to the competing intra-party machines) probably help account for the fact that the Dems haven't nominated a genuine scumbag in the past, well, forty years at least. But it's also true that, over the past 20 years, the Dems who have risen near the top of the House and Senate leadership -- Tip O'Neill, Dick Gephardt, David Bonier, George Mitchell, Tom Foley, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durban -- have by in large been pretty respectable, decent, public-minded, uncorruptable types. "Uncorruptable" is relative of course; but compared to what you'd expect from such an awful, unregulated, uncritiqued system as what the US has engineered for itself, and especially compared to what the GOP has, time after time, spat to the top of its hierarchy, the Dems are amazingly clean.
Anyway, I gave myself a good reminder of what I meant when, browsing in Chapters today, I picked up a copy of Susan Estrich's new book The Case for Hillary. The first sentence I happened upon on opening the book to the middle was the following (this is from memory so there might be a word or two out of place):
"Kerry running in 2008 would be good for Hillary because it would look like a big deal for her to beat him. Even if it isn't."
That's pretty much par for the course over the roughly 200 pages, unless I missed the valuable parts. The appalling dumbness of Estrich's catty little book really defies comment. I debated buying it so I could mock it more coherently, but decided to buy an old XTC cd instead (I'm listening to it now). The first two thirds mainly cover Estrich -- speaking in the first person to provide the full "Dear Diary" ambiance -- heaping contempt on every other major Democrat to come down the pike in the past decade... or at least those who didn't hire her to work their campaigns... and making sure we know that she wasn't the one who put Dukakis in the tank (apparently it was Sam Nunn's fault, somehow.) Just for kicks, here's a little bit of the other political scuttlebutt Estrich dishes:
- Even though Estrich is making the case for Hillary, she's really more of friend of Bill's.
- Estrich thinks that, even though these losers often don't know when to quit (re: Gary Hart running in '88), she bets that Kerry won't in fact run again.
- Teresa Heinz ("yes, it's Heinz again") is the sort of narcissistic bitch who just couldn't be stopped from talking on and on about herself at the Convention, leading Estrich to ask a friend in consternation "What happened?!" after watching the debacle.
- Estrich just "doesn't get" Al Gore (although she has an amusing habit of refering to Gore in the third person as "Him" -- so maybe the mystery is in fact divine.)
- Republicans, in Estrich's opinion, are really hoping to run against Edwards in 2008. They actually fear Evan Bayh, but there's no way he wins the nomination (though if he promises to stay out, Hil might choose him as her running mate!)
- Dick Gephardt is, in Estrich's fleeting opinion, "a fine man".
- John Kerry was, like, the worst candidate, ever and, frankly, Iowa remembers. Fool me once and all that. (Variants on this rumination go on for several chapters making me think that Kerry didn't ask Estrich for enough advice.)
I'm not really conveying the sheer stupidity of this book, or of Estrich's dire warnings that if Hillary loses, it will be a devastating blow to the hopes and dreams of women everywhere. (If Estrich is really worried about negative females stereotypes she should stop publishing.) But the point is that it's unfair to hold Estrich against the Clintons. I hate the idea of Estrich getting her wish and seeing her "arguments" confirmed, but at the same time, there's not that much indication to me that HRC, or her husband, have really been all that corrupted by the National Inquirer-esque circus that's been going on around them for several years... the Dick Morrises, the Ed Kleins, the Susan Estriches, the David Schleppers, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the mainstream press by turns sychophantic and obsessively, emotionally overcritical. No doubt, all the idiocy on all sides of the HRC '08 debate -- just look at the amazingly uncritical partisan reviews of Estrich's book racked up at Amazon -- is going to make for a very depressing campaign season if HRC actually goes for it. And there's a real danger that Democrats, especially those who care about the future of their party, are going to confuse the swirling nonsense surrounding her candidacy with the candidate herself, and hold it against her, and against the party and the broad, vulnerable coalition of interests that she'll be representing.
Sometimes I think that's the real goal of the Clintons' "friends" and overt enemies -- to reduce the Clintons to the main players in a ludicrous, meaningless, tasteless game, turning Democratic politics into Hollywood and preserving the myth of the Republicans as the party of values and serious governance. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, or of Bill Clinton even, but any good retrospective history of the Clinton Administration proves that the Clintons are more than just the conniving, hyper-ambitious socialites their critics will paint them. I don't think Estrich, as she implicitly confirms every myth of Democratic frivolity in her purported "defence" of Hillary, is actually smart enough to be a knowing part of such a grand discrediting scheme. But that doesn't mean she's not a damn fine prop.
Anyway, I gave myself a good reminder of what I meant when, browsing in Chapters today, I picked up a copy of Susan Estrich's new book The Case for Hillary. The first sentence I happened upon on opening the book to the middle was the following (this is from memory so there might be a word or two out of place):
"Kerry running in 2008 would be good for Hillary because it would look like a big deal for her to beat him. Even if it isn't."
That's pretty much par for the course over the roughly 200 pages, unless I missed the valuable parts. The appalling dumbness of Estrich's catty little book really defies comment. I debated buying it so I could mock it more coherently, but decided to buy an old XTC cd instead (I'm listening to it now). The first two thirds mainly cover Estrich -- speaking in the first person to provide the full "Dear Diary" ambiance -- heaping contempt on every other major Democrat to come down the pike in the past decade... or at least those who didn't hire her to work their campaigns... and making sure we know that she wasn't the one who put Dukakis in the tank (apparently it was Sam Nunn's fault, somehow.) Just for kicks, here's a little bit of the other political scuttlebutt Estrich dishes:
- Even though Estrich is making the case for Hillary, she's really more of friend of Bill's.
- Estrich thinks that, even though these losers often don't know when to quit (re: Gary Hart running in '88), she bets that Kerry won't in fact run again.
- Teresa Heinz ("yes, it's Heinz again") is the sort of narcissistic bitch who just couldn't be stopped from talking on and on about herself at the Convention, leading Estrich to ask a friend in consternation "What happened?!" after watching the debacle.
- Estrich just "doesn't get" Al Gore (although she has an amusing habit of refering to Gore in the third person as "Him" -- so maybe the mystery is in fact divine.)
- Republicans, in Estrich's opinion, are really hoping to run against Edwards in 2008. They actually fear Evan Bayh, but there's no way he wins the nomination (though if he promises to stay out, Hil might choose him as her running mate!)
- Dick Gephardt is, in Estrich's fleeting opinion, "a fine man".
- John Kerry was, like, the worst candidate, ever and, frankly, Iowa remembers. Fool me once and all that. (Variants on this rumination go on for several chapters making me think that Kerry didn't ask Estrich for enough advice.)
I'm not really conveying the sheer stupidity of this book, or of Estrich's dire warnings that if Hillary loses, it will be a devastating blow to the hopes and dreams of women everywhere. (If Estrich is really worried about negative females stereotypes she should stop publishing.) But the point is that it's unfair to hold Estrich against the Clintons. I hate the idea of Estrich getting her wish and seeing her "arguments" confirmed, but at the same time, there's not that much indication to me that HRC, or her husband, have really been all that corrupted by the National Inquirer-esque circus that's been going on around them for several years... the Dick Morrises, the Ed Kleins, the Susan Estriches, the David Schleppers, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the mainstream press by turns sychophantic and obsessively, emotionally overcritical. No doubt, all the idiocy on all sides of the HRC '08 debate -- just look at the amazingly uncritical partisan reviews of Estrich's book racked up at Amazon -- is going to make for a very depressing campaign season if HRC actually goes for it. And there's a real danger that Democrats, especially those who care about the future of their party, are going to confuse the swirling nonsense surrounding her candidacy with the candidate herself, and hold it against her, and against the party and the broad, vulnerable coalition of interests that she'll be representing.
Sometimes I think that's the real goal of the Clintons' "friends" and overt enemies -- to reduce the Clintons to the main players in a ludicrous, meaningless, tasteless game, turning Democratic politics into Hollywood and preserving the myth of the Republicans as the party of values and serious governance. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, or of Bill Clinton even, but any good retrospective history of the Clinton Administration proves that the Clintons are more than just the conniving, hyper-ambitious socialites their critics will paint them. I don't think Estrich, as she implicitly confirms every myth of Democratic frivolity in her purported "defence" of Hillary, is actually smart enough to be a knowing part of such a grand discrediting scheme. But that doesn't mean she's not a damn fine prop.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home