The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

You Never Can Tell

The case for Hillary defeating Bush. Plus: The Vatican U.N. Also: The Corry Papers, Part IV. And more.
p> CELEBRITY COVER br> Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Hillary’s Running and Reader Mail’s Madam President : /p>

Another sober dissent:

I must disagree with those who say Hillary has no chance of winning should she run against George W. Bush. Certainly none of us who place any value on the integrity of the office would want to see such a thing (though, in fairness, her husband did a good job of dispensing with that). It would without a doubt dissipate whatever respect we have left globally. And, of course, the idea that someone with Ms. Clinton’s past infelicities (of which we are all well aware) could have even become senator is disgraceful enough. True, we will never know what might have happened if Rudy Giuliani had remained in the running — I suspect something quite different, but we can’t be sure. But does Our Imperial Hillary have a chance against GWB? The answer, I think, is sadly yes. Here is why:

As smarter people than me have already pointed out, Mrs. Clinton’s popularity stems not from anything she personally has done (or not done — and there’s a lot on both counts) but on her celebrity. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, Hillary is no different than a Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, or any other Hollywood motormouth, except that she has a vote in the Senate to go along with her leftism. To say standards for her are not high is an exaggeration. Britney Spears is held to higher scrutiny than she.

Which leads me to H.L. Mencken’s famous crack about underestimating the stupidity of the American people. While not accusing Americans of stupidity, they do seem prone to suggestibility. I’m thinking back to MTV’s “Rock the Vote” campaign which certainly helped elect the first Clinton. Doubtless Mrs. Clinton will have even more star power behind her. The press seems interested only in fawning over her. As for “cocooned sycophants,” they can be remarkably effective. How else do we explain the Kennedys?

Mrs. Clinton is neither stupid nor inarticulate, with a few ill-timed exceptions. If GWB finds himself apologizing for anything, going on the defensive, or just plain bumbling — no, I do not think it inconceivable that Mrs. Clinton would have a chance. I recall someone writing of her New York candidacy that “the votes weren’t there.” Well, they were there. And they’re out there.

p>Should the international concerns melt into new “It’s the economy, stupid” whines, a second President Clinton may well be on the way. I doubt this will happen — at least not while the American public believes their safety is at risk. As for betting—I’d be curious to see a Hillary-Rudy rematch in 2008. Check your Pay-per-View listings! br> —
Page: 1 2 3   Last ›

topics:
Religion, Islam, Hollywood, Military, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, United Nations, NATO, Energy, Oil

Letter to the Editor

Related Articles

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2003/03/10/you-never-can-tell

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell | 5.22.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT