HILLARY CLINTON: Her Way by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr
J Murray £20 pp448
A WOMAN IN CHARGE: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Carl Bernstein
Hutchinson £25 pp640
I have, if not a dream, a reverie. In this alternative reading, the bright and
tough-minded young Hillary Rodham stays close to her conservative parents in
Illinois, becomes an attorney specialising in (let’s say) environmental law,
marries a wealthy Chicago businessman who admires her pluck and intellect,
survives the discredit of the Republican party under Richard Nixon, and is
elected the junior republican senator from her home state about six years
after the last American soldier leaves Vietnam. She would long ago have had
the chance to become the first female president of the United States.
Instead of which, she moved vaguely “left” in her college years, hooked up
with a Rhodes scholar but obvious scallywag who made her move to an obscure
Southern state, put in some gruelling time as his wife and helpmeet, hoped
to see him run in 1988, was almost shattered by discovering the private
reasons that made it impossible for him to do so, bit her lip for another
four years, then lived eight rather distraught years in the White House, and
has spent all her subsequent life trying to catch up to the electoral cycle
that she missed the first time around. These days she is finally running for
the top job, with the most tight-lipped and rehearsed smile in America, and
she knows that it’s now or never.
There is tragedy and comedy in this story, but tragedy and comedy are almost
entirely lacking in the two vast tomes that have now appeared, both haunting
and highlighting her campaign. Here it all is again: the familiar and dreary
tale that lays bare the banality of most modern politics. Zigzagging after
the opinion polls, desperate for money and not supremely choosy about how to
acquire it, consumed with ambition, Hillary Clinton picks up and drops the
“Rodham” by turns, as she comes to realise that her husband cares for nobody
but himself. I am not an admirer of her current spin doctors, but there was
some justice in the comment made by Philippe Reines, her Senate spokesman,
who has dismissed both these books not as “cash for trash” – the old charge
against the truth-telling women who exposed Bill Clinton’s sordid amours –
but as “cash for rehash”. These studies are not trash, but what they contain
is indeed largely old news. And yet that’s partly the point.
The candidate herself seems determined to redisprove Scott Fitzgerald’s
much-exploded dictum that there are no second acts in American lives.
Unfortunately for her, this involves both taking the credit for her
husband’s administration, while avoiding the less adorable aspects of the
couple’s political and personal relationship. Thus, Jeff Gerth and Don Van
Natta suggest – correctly in my view – that her relatively hawkish position
on Iraq is to be explained by the fairly hard line that Clinton and Al Gore
(then) took on Saddam Hussein, while Carl Bernstein argues persuasively
that, in the Arkansas years, Hillary sought advice about divorce, personally
interviewed one woman she thought might be sleeping with her husband and had
to be talked out of making a run for the governorship on her own account as
a means of getting back at him.
Gerth and Van Natta also claim two sources for the story that Bill and Hillary
agreed on a strategy of two terms as president for him, to be followed in
due course by two terms as president for her. One of the sources has since
retracted, but the authors are not the sort of reporters to make a mistake
on this scale (they’re both from the New York Times stable), and I find the
allegation convincing in that, given the distraught self-centredness that
dominated this dysfunctional marriage, it is easy to imagine such a crazy
pact being made. It would also help explain the annoying sense of
entitlement that Mrs Clinton’s campaign displays. She’s suffered for this,
she’s sacrificed for it, she’s endured humiliation in her quest for it.
She’s already earned it, in fact.
The words “control freak” were freely used, even by Clinton sympathisers, to
describe the then-First Lady while she was in the White House. This is
nothing to the state of affairs now described by Gerth and Van Natta, who
have interviewed those who attend strategy sessions at the senator’s
Washington home. “Visitors are asked to check their bags, cameras and
cellphones at the door, pictures are taken by an authorised photographer.”
Nothing must be left to chance. It’s not difficult to guess where this
obsessive attention to detail has come from. Bernstein has her telling a
close female friend back in the 1990s that, with Bill safely in the White
House, she could at last relax about his uncontrollable infidelities. The
cares of office and the vigilance of the press corps would keep him in
bounds. To describe this as an optimistic view of the case would be an
understatement. The related problem (that in the meanwhile Mrs Clinton
knowingly smeared truth-telling females as liars and helped to have them
discredited) is receiving less attention than it might. We used to hear that
“lying about sex” was more or less okay. Grant that if you like – but what
about lying about women? Mrs Clinton’s popularity among female voters is by
no means as great as she might like to think, and it’s not difficult to see
why.
Some damaging things are said in these books. Health care is already a huge
question in the Democratic primaries, with John Edwards making most of the
running on what used to be Mrs Clinton’s pet subject, and now comes Bob
Boorstin, who worked for her at the crucial time, to tell Bernstein: “I find
her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known in my life.
And it’s her great flaw: it’s what killed health care.” Gore is not quoted,
but it’s an open secret that he cannot stand her and that, if he chooses to
run again, it will be partly because of her excruciating personality. This
is a lot of baggage to be toting and – to return to those spin doctors –
“rehash” is only another term for baggage.
On the offensive
Hillary Clinton’s first exposure to mass scrutiny in 1992 was a disaster, and,
as Gerth and Van Natta reveal, it took a Hollywood star to help clean up the
mess. She told CBS viewers at the height of the Gennifer Flowers scandal:
‘I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy
Wynette.’ As the storm broke, Hillary’s aides phoned Wynette to broker a
personal apology, but the singer wouldn’t take the call. She relented only
when the actor Burt Reynolds said, ‘You have to talk to her.’
Available at Sunday Times Books First prices of £18 (Gerth) and £23 (inc p&p)
on 0870 165 8585 and timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
I still consider "No one left to lie to" among the more entertaining books I've read, and strongly desire to see Mr. Hitchens pen a book such as the ones reviewed by him in this column. The timing is obvious, as the female anti-christ smells victory with every well-rehersed sound-bite, "debate" or appearence on a network news show (did you pray, Mrs. Clinton?) And, to quote an oldie but goodie, "nobody does it better". C'mon Hitch, she's capable of causing as much damage as any religion. Imagine her reaction to the news of your next book "The Truth regarding Hillary Rodham Mother Theresa Clinton"
Dave Tack, Dennisville, New Jersey
On Hitchens's review: Someone smears the innocent for damage control/personal gain. Is it a Nifong? a Clinton? Or those yell BarAbbas?
Sander Fredman, Leesburg, Virginia/USA
So someone smeared the innocent for personal gain, huh?! Are we talking Mark Nifong, Hillary Clinton, or those who yelled ``BarAbbas''?
Sander Fredman, Leesburg, Virginia/USA
My man Hitch
keepin' it real
john doba, spring, TX
I'm disturbed about a lot, but particularly, Hillary Clinton interviewing the woman about relations with Bill Clinton. Did the woman know that Hillary was married to Bill? Was she going by Hillary Rodham at the time? As well as "creepy" I would think there would be ethical problems...
Amy Hasslacher, Alexandria, VA, USA
What the commenters above are missing is that Hillary's past actions are directly relevant to the "job interview" that "We the People" are conducting "over here."
None of the commenters above disputes the items presented in the books and discussed in the review by Mr Hitchens -- instead each commenter, in a slightly different way, assails the recitation of these items without refuting them and without showing their irrelevance to her proposed service as president of the U.S.
One says above: "I do not understand why people would buy re-hashed fact or gossip about Hillary. The country is in too dire a state to spend the time." -- So we don't have the time to consider the facts of Hillary's character and past actions? To the contrary, we must do so, and do so honestly. Our very future depends on it.
Jack , San Francisco, CA
Reverie"; OH Please!!, We knew that in 1992, " She was delirious then and hasn`t changed a thing".
Hillary gives a whole new definition to the word predator, and putting up with mister psychopath and his nonsense has just added to a setback for womens liberation.
We could have picked Kimba woods, Condi rice, or any of a few more well qualified females and had a shot at it. Lets face it, Hillary is no "rags to riches Filly".
Douglas J Ossentjuk, Montgomery, NY
Jan, of Nashua, NH: STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!
Diana, Chico, CA
I agree with you guys. Hitchen's shouldn't waste our time rehashing gossip about Hillary Clinton.
Why doesn't he concentrate on serious, substantiated news stories like how George W. Bush ordered the use of a directed energy weapon on the World Trade Center? Or the fact that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to deny China access to oil? What about reporting the unusual increase in chemtrail activity by U.S. military aircraft over the New Orleans region in the weeks leading up to the Katrina nightmare - an obvious act of WEATHER WAR perpetrated by the Bush/Cheney dictatorship?
It's a good thing we have so many rational, free-thinking Progressives out there to help us separate fact from fiction from pure gossip and outright lies! Where would we be if we had to rely on right-wing media outlets like CNN or The New York Times?
Christopher (not Hitchens), Memphis, TN
So Hillary miscalculated Bill's behavior in the White House and miscalculated George's behavior toward Iraq. Faked out by the smartest man in the world and duped by the dumbest man in the world. Houston, I think we have a problem...
Robert
Arroyo Grande
Robert Holland, Arroyo Grande, USA/CA
I wish I understood all the hoo-haw about Hillary.
To me she seems a most unremarkable individual. The idea that she is a shining intellect who is one of the smartest people in America is silly to laughable.
If anything, a woman who tolerates a husband like hers is nothing more than a dupe or a fool, and an American president cannot afford to be perceived as dupe or a fool.
It really is as simple as all that.
Charles Gill, Gainesville, GA
I see that HItchen's one dimensional attacks on Hillary Clinton continue to dominate his discussion of her .
But I wonder how the man who thinks he is a rationalist still supports the reason for the Iraqi war, which in and of itself is highly obscured. I have seen little from him lately about George W. Bush, either pro or con. Is he embarrassed now about his strong support of the Iraqi war?
He charges Hillary Clinton with self promotion, but he needs to carefully look at himself and his hypocrisy concerning the Iraqi war.
But, in the end, he is just an entertainer, little better than Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity who spew the same kind of hatred without evidence toward the political figures of the day. Hitchens called the last chapter of his book on religion, the Need for a New Enlightenment. His lack of rationality and his own hypocrisy will add little to the future of that much needed enlightenment.
Tom Krekel, Sanibel, FL
The timing obviously is such as to profit maximally on the books, but I do not understand why people would buy re-hashed fact or gossip about Hillary. The country is in too dire a state to spend the time. What may be the paramount concern at this point, as George Will recently wrote, is competence, something we've sorely lacked these last - goodness, it feels like forever. I think we can agree, Hillary offers that, as a few others do it seems. We don't CARE about all the personal difficulties unless we think they're indicators that she will collapse or be undermined in the job. I think the same goes for the others that are running. Is it January 2009 yet?
Marc, Los Angeles, CA
Wow, Christopher Hitchens continues to state plain old ordinary gossip as FACT, over and over and over again. Mr. Hitchens, We the People are conducting a job interview here. Are we better off now than we were eight years ago? NO! Have you gone to Sen. Clinton's website and looked at her Smart Government plans to renew peace and properity in America? As far as I'm concerned, the Clinton Hating is getting old.
Jan, Nashua, NH
Hillary Clinton will round the corner of the "Demise of America" race track. Her inability to see the big picture without herself in it, is her flaw and America's possible big problem. Like all Democrats, she has been in an election cycle while the world has been in reality. Too bad for the US, the rest of the world is easily blinded by the idiocy covered up by a lower lip bite and slight thumb point to see reality; now we might have to endure more years of Clinton. The moronic push for socialized, everyone on a waiting list, medical "care" reveals that she can't even see that entitlements already in place will wreck the economy. Democrats are stupid and Mrs Rodham is the Queen.
Why would I look forward to going home, when the country will be swirling in the UN crapper when I get there...if Hillary, or any other Dem is elected President?
I now live in Scotland but currently look forward to actual healthcare when I get home.
Jeremy, Dundee, Scotland