Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Get the Clintons Off the Stage
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/15/03 | Susan Estrich

Posted on 05/15/2003 8:15:09 AM PDT by shortstop

The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats.

TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; clintoon; estrich; susanestrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last
To: shortstop
I, for one, think that the Royal Couple definitely should be on the stage -- it departs Chappaqua for Canada in about an hour....
81 posted on 05/15/2003 11:11:35 AM PDT by tracer (/b>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Isn't Estrich the gal who talks like a bullfrog on steroids . . . like she missed a step and straddled a picket fence? The Californicator Professor? Or am I thinking of anudder Looney Libber?

If she is, this is a great catch because she worships at the Clinton Altar . . . especially Pee Wee's. Ain't it great to see the Rats in full-retreat?

82 posted on 05/15/2003 11:13:51 AM PDT by geedee (Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
83 posted on 05/15/2003 11:15:57 AM PDT by AbsoluteJustice (Kiss me I'm an INFIDEL!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
good call!
84 posted on 05/15/2003 11:16:21 AM PDT by krunkygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB; Freedom'sWorthIt; Ceebass
 "She's smart"...he's "brilliant...."
--Susan Estrich, Get the Clintons Off the Stage


Susan Estrich is smart enough to know better...
Less patronization than self-preservation, I suspect.

"I have no infrastructure to deal with this."

bill clinton 

One of the unintended consequences of America's rejection of mandated political correctness is that legends crumble.

The classic case is that of Bill Clinton. The conventional wisdom has been (even from his critics) that notwithstanding policy and philosophy disagreements Bill Clinton was/is a smart, charming, even brilliant man.

The reality that is becoming increasingly clear to those willing to see is that "The President Clinton Package" and his team of advisers, managers, and spin doctors, were smart, charming and at times brilliant. However, left to his own devices and without the support, advice, counsel and coercive powers of office, Bill is (for the second time in two months) emphatically demonstrating he ain't all that smart.

Bill's big yap:
Geoff Metcalf slams Clinton's foot-in-mouth sophistry


PUFFY-faced polemicist Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens claims Bill Clinton is a "lousy crook."

... He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."

hitchens on the clintons

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton
A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory


by Mia T, 1-29-03



Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster, our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)


Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

by Mia T

John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot." 


The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning hillary clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny...

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

The pols understand their anatomical limitations well; they attempt to mitigate them with veneer. And so we suffer mindless alpha-beta-beelzebubba grotesquerie. . . 

and rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy.

With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .

Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.

Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity.

Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments:

"At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."

Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché

In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).

Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?

A wasted brain is a terrible thing.


hillary's head revisited:
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II

 by Mia T

The smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.

hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind...

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

(More Didion: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.")

Analyzed and Annotated

by Mia T
January 22, 2002







Using internal polling, the clinton 'infrastructure' determined that its cozy-clintonoid-interviews-of-the-Colmes/King-kind-scheme is no longer working. The scheme, which successfully shepherded and shielded the vacuous, inept, corrupt clintons for nine years, is now, post-9/11, yielding diminishing returns--and worse--increasing ridicule.

Hence, we had the clinton 'infrastructure' interviewer recalculation last week that specified more interviewer gravitas...and less lapdog...but not more doggedness...that is to say...that specified Jeff Greenfield.

A miscalculation, as it turned out. Greenfield made up in contempt what he lacked in inexorability. Although he conducted the entire interview circumambulating on eggshells, Greenfield did eventually ask the hard-boiled questions...

ASIDE: The tough questioning was followed by Greenfield's sudden, post-interview departure from CNN, a development which will only further reinforce cozy-clintonoid-interviews-of-the-Colmes/King-kind 4th-estate malfeasance.


Greenfield's circuitous path to clinton depravity and failure necessitates a nonlinear analysis of the data; we will use a (nonlinear) least squares curve fitter. Proportional hazards political survival regression analysis will generate a political survival curve for hillary clinton, which will show her viability (so to speak) over time.

Political survival time is defined as the length of the interval between the initial political trial balloon and political moribundity. Political moribundity is defined as two consecutive political failures--(one in the case of 9/11), or three not-necessarily-consecutive boo-filled public appearances, or one instance of a serious proposal generating laughter.

ASIDE: Since by any of these standards, hillary clinton is already flatlined, the more interesting question for this analysis would be: "What the hell is this moribund loser doing in the political arena, anyway?"

Survival is influenced by one or more factors, called "predictors" or "covariates", which may be categorical (such as the quality of 'infrastructure') or continuous (such as intellect or eloquence or character).


  • clinton rigor mortis rendered any discussion of clinton moribundity moot.
  • Nonetheless, one of the more significant continuous predictors of political moribundity is clinton's tic-like insertion of "you know," a marker for ineloquence, vulgarity, ignorance, rube-meets-valley-girl demographics, low self-esteem, anxiety and insincerity.
  • clinton uttered "you know" 52 times. Greenfield eventually caught the bug and uttered six "you knows," himself--a cautionary tale for wannabe clintonoid lapdogs.
  • Frequency of clinton "you knows" varied directly with intensity of Greenfield contempt and inversely with magnitude of Greenfield softballs.
  • clinton response is consistent with Rubin complicity in a clinton coup. See "The Daschle Scheme".

GREENFIELD: Tonight, a conversation with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the nation and the world after September 11, on GREENFIELD AT LARGE.

THE COMPLETE ANNOTATED INTERVIEW (NB: a very long, you know, download because of the, you know, clinton criminal, you know, redundancy.)

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Personal Agitprop-and-Money-Laundering Machine, Cozy-clintonoid-Interviews-of-the-Colmes-Kind-Scheme
REAL "Living History"

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office update

85 posted on 05/15/2003 11:24:55 AM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
the laugh grates on the ears, but, just as you say, she sometimes actually seems to speak the truth--contrary to 99.8% of liberals...
86 posted on 05/15/2003 11:27:37 AM PDT by krunkygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet

"when I was in orfice, I used to get a big thrill beating my compone-uh um err I meant opponents! "

87 posted on 05/15/2003 11:28:20 AM PDT by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Susan Says: "There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady"

"Bill Clinton is a brilliant man."

Well Susan,1 out of 2 isn't bad.

88 posted on 05/15/2003 11:28:24 AM PDT by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug , Holier-Than-Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
Fox News is hosting a Dem debate just before the South Carolina primary. The first question they should ask should be:

If you are elected as President, will you now publicly promise the American people that you will NOT sexually abuse interns in the Oval Office..

89 posted on 05/15/2003 11:30:18 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Susan has made some sense lately, however, her writing skills are horrible.
90 posted on 05/15/2003 11:32:51 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bagman
Thanks. I wasn't sure, but wanted to take a shot anyway.
91 posted on 05/15/2003 11:36:04 AM PDT by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: All
Bottom line. It was the terrorism stupid...

Defeating terrorism, the key to the immortality and greatness that they so desperately seek, was right under their nose.

Not very smart, those two...
92 posted on 05/15/2003 11:41:24 AM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
I hope Susan has good security where she lives. The Clintons don't like dissent from their own. See Foster and Brown for examples.
93 posted on 05/15/2003 11:42:14 AM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
" Bill Clinton is a brilliant man.

"This is the sentence that always kills me, and every librul repeats it ad infinitum. "

Anyone who thinks Clinton is brillant, should read the transcripts of his testimonies,his speeches and his off the cuff remarks. The man is a blithering idiot!!If a conservative spoke the words that vomit out of Clinton's mouth,they would be be ridiculed. There is no cohesiveness and logic to his remarks-many times they are incomprehensible gibberish and mindless slogans.The Democrats confuse the fact that he's a clever sociopath,suffering from a malignant narcissistic personality disorder( like Saddam), with genius. The fact that he is still married to the She Devil is proof positive that the guy is not only hung like a squirrel,but,is a moron.
Susan Estrich is the only Democrat who is starting to get it. When she appears with Rich Galen on Fox,she will criticize her fellow Dems and will give kudos to the Republicans.But, the toady platitudes towards the Clintons makes it very clear,that she is afraid of the Clintons.There was a famous Twilight Zone episode where a monsterous kid terrorized everyone. No matter how horrendous the kid behaved-the townspeople would cower and say " It's good that you do that." That's todays Democrat Party-no matter how grotesque and destructive the Clintons are to the party-everyone cowers and says " It's good that they do that. " And as a conservative, I must say " I'm glad that they do that!!"
94 posted on 05/15/2003 11:57:25 AM PDT by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level. . .

Somehow, I don't think "rise" is the correct verb.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

95 posted on 05/15/2003 12:02:51 PM PDT by mikeb704
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RooRoobird14
So that's why Susan sounds EXACTLY like Charlie Rangel!!!!

She's always reminded me of the late George Halas.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

96 posted on 05/15/2003 12:04:08 PM PDT by mikeb704
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
You're right. She is afraid of the Clintons AS ARE MANY AMONG THE DEMS! They know a Hitler / Mafia Boss when they see one. They KNOW the Clintons are murderers of anybody who stands in their way to power. And they payoff bigtime those who play along with them in their quest for power.

One should also point out that Republicans also are fully aware (the ones in the Senate and House at least) of the MURDEROUS Clinton Carbal. They saw that Carbal in full action mode during the IMpeachment proceedings. Let us not forget that the guy who read the bills in the Senate (or in the HOUSE?) was killed when he and his wife stepped into the street - run over by a guy whose presence in that part of the city at that particular time was unexplained and whose "case" since then has been mysteriously disappeared.....just an accident, you know. Let us also not forget that Betty Currie's brother was murdered - first forced off the road by one of the Union Thug Truck Driving Goons (car crashed) and then when this man survived that murder attempt, another motorist came along and ran him down!!!

Does anyone in their right mind think for one second that these "accidents" were anything but CLINTON ORDERED HITS??? TO GIVE A MESSAGE TO BOTH THE SENATORS AND TO BETTY CURRIE THAT THEY BETTER SHUT THEIR MOUTHS???? AND VOTE TO NOT IMPEACH????

There were rumors at that time of Senators whispering of the DANGERS from the Clintons....with good reason!!! THEY WERE SCARED FOR THEIR LIVES!!!!

And while we are talking about Clinton murders.....who remembers the mysterious deaths of Armed Services people who accompanied Bill Clinton to one of the ships he visited for one of his (forced) photo ops with the troops whom he loathed and whose votes he labored diligently to prevent from being counted???? I will get the links of all of these murders if there is any ignorant person reading this who has forgotten the trail of death (with good reason) behind the murderous Clintons.

Susan Estrich is not dumb. Maybe shrill and ugly, but not dumb.

97 posted on 05/15/2003 12:09:55 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
Missed it. Botox? (The effect is temporary)
98 posted on 05/15/2003 12:11:27 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Who's Bill Clinton?
99 posted on 05/15/2003 12:42:40 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Beware the Rodham Fedayeen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
...the Democrats of the future....

Every time I heard Suzie say this, the image that came to mind was the "chef of the future" gag of an old Jackie Gleason/Honeymooners episode -- where Ed Norton and Ralph Cramdon were making a live TV commercial for a multi-use kitchen tool (another one of Ralph's get-rich-quick schemes) that could be used for (among other things) "coring A apple." "Oh chef of the future, what wonder have you brought to me!!?" asks Norton. And Ralph goes "humma-humma-humma...." siezed by stage fright, and definitely not ready for prime time -- just like the nine dwarfs, with or without upstanging by the Clintons.

100 posted on 05/15/2003 1:10:52 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson