Skip to comments.
The Clintons Are Back [Rush Notes: This Article Doesn't Seem To Have Been Run By Any Paper Online]
Creator's Syndicate ^
| 5/14/03
| Susan Estrich
Posted on 05/16/2003 10:11:18 AM PDT by William McKinley
All newspaper editors want to know what their readers like. If you would like to read this feature in your local newspaper, please do not hesitate to share your enthusiasm with your local newspaper editor.
SUSAN ESTRICH
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003, AND THEREAFTER
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 someone please tell these people to shut up?
The Democrats might have a chance of electing a new president if they could get the last one, and his defenders, to clear the stage. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They should be history.
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'll never do so long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990s.
Don't get me wrong. No one spent more time defending Bill Clinton than I did. Too much, according to most of my friends. But in a constitutional crisis, there was no choice. Enough is enough.
There's no excuse for a grown man to have an affair with an intern, whether his name is Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. What the former president did was wrong.
It's bad enough that Fox has given Monica Lewinsky a talk show. Of all the hundreds of women who could help find Mr. Personality, the last one on earth who's earned the right to do it is the Queen of Blow Jobs of the 1990s.
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, to put it more accurately, why are they?
Not because it serves the interests of Democrats of the future.
It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt.
It makes George W. Bush look good.
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 accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me in trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder Republicans are delighted to see his return to the spotlight.
It raises money for their causes.
The Bill and Bob (Dole) show on CBS has proven to be a colossal 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 non-working, 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 talk about her as a future president, the more money Republicans raise. The more people 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 ...
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clintons; shutup; susanestrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: William McKinley
She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard working and effective. She is much respected among her peers. ...and here's where our opinions diverge.
21
posted on
05/16/2003 2:39:10 PM PDT
by
fat city
To: William McKinley
Susan Ostrich still calls the Felon a "brilliant man." Holy cats! She's close to brain dead, by alive enough to recognize what pernicious RATS the Klintoons are and how ruinous they have been and will continue to be. This is the first wise thing I have ever heard from Ostrich, the Screetch.
To: My2Cents
She's a law professor. How can you expect her to know why the Felon was impeached?
To: William McKinley
What would be really interesting to see is the fax or e-mail that persuaded all those editors not to run this column.
To: William McKinley
Clinton: "...And then I said, 'Ms. Lewinsky, how about sharing with me your qualifications for being a White House intern,' and she goes like this..."
25
posted on
05/16/2003 3:21:46 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
("Well....there you go again.")
To: Heuristic Hiker
You might find this column interesting.
To: William McKinley
>>...The Clintons suck ...<<
No need to read further.
To: William McKinley
The author, nice lady with gravel for voice, has fallen into her own trap. Using her status as a durable Democrat operative, she hammers her colleagues square on top of the head. She publishes her enslaught for all the world to see and chastizes her fellow travellers for drawing attention to their history of scandals.
28
posted on
05/16/2003 7:42:12 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: William McKinley
Welcome back! I'm overjoyed you're here. You will utilize so much ink the liberal candidates will not get any. And you will be the reason Bush will "destroy all comers" next year. He was going to win, but you make it a snap! Thanks for the help Bill and Hilary.
To: William McKinley
OMG! For once Susan and I agree on one point.
Enough of the Clintons.
To: wideawake
I think they want Hillary in 2004. There was a letter to the editor in my local paper last week calling her out to run this time, as she is the only hope for America. There have been hints that there are those urging her to run. She will have to give into those voices if they get loud enough. Of course, I believe she is the puppet master behind the voices.
To: Pylot
You know, Clinton is always said to be brilliant, and even a lot of conservatives seem to buy that description of him. I have seen no evidence to prove that it's true. He got into Oxford through connections, and didn't finish it, he is incapable of making decisions, and if you read George Stefawhat'shisface's book, he really didn't, his advisers and Hillary did.
Where is the proof other than that the media tells us he is, that Clinton is brilliant? Stupid is more likely to me!
To: ladyinred
That's amazing that the Clinton's have so much power that they can totally SPIKE this essay.
To: William McKinley
Has this been published yet by any mainstream media. They usually gobble up the Creator Syndicate authors. How did they miss this one, or did I miss it?
34
posted on
05/16/2003 9:01:37 PM PDT
by
Jean S
To: William McKinley
She used to have a regular column in a California paper. The Chronicle? the Examiner? I can't remember.
The most recent of her articles that I can find are published in USA Today.
It's an embarassing reflection on the mainstream papers that not one of them picked up her piece.
35
posted on
05/16/2003 9:17:40 PM PDT
by
Jean S
To: D. Brian Carter
Dick Morris always said that Clinton was brilliant. And you can be brilliant without a moral bone in your body.
He also laughs when people call Hillary intelligent. He says, "She's not intelligent. Bill is the smart one. She is just ruthless."
To: I still care
Lots of people have said he was brilliant. Tons of people said he was a great public speaker with charisma and charm. I never saw either... as far as his brilliance, I can't think of one thing I've ever seen him say or do that made me respect his intellect (and please don't cite that trumped up Rhodes Scholar bit). As a speaker, he always came off to me as very insincere and staged, with every exaggerated facial gesture coached and practiced. If brilliance and great public skills were the keys to becoming President, Alan Keyes and a host of others would have occupied the White House long before "Brilliant Billy". Just my opinion....
To: ladyinred
Perhaps I am mistaking brilliance for the cunning wiles of a true sociopath?
38
posted on
05/18/2003 3:26:39 PM PDT
by
Pylot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson