Monday, July 29, 2013


Excuse me, but why are we paying attention to this story, from Frederic Dicker of the New York Post? And if the unnamed sources quoted in the story actually exist, and are accurately reproducing the sentiments of Bill and Hillary Clinton, why are they (the sources and the Clintons) so worked up?
Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades -- and his wife Huma Abedin's incredible forgiveness -- to the Clintons' notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging -- that Huma is 'standing by her man' the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did," said a top state Democrat....

In the view of many Democrats, the Weiners have also alluded more subtly to the Clintons.

For instance, Abedin, with her husband at her side, declared last week, "Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs."

"Who didn't think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said that?" asked another prominent Democrat.

Worried about the potential impact on Hillary's likely run for president in 2016, the political power couple has begun aggressively distancing itself from the crippled mayoral contender, according to sources.

Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to "going public" with a sharp criticism of Weiner -- in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor's race. (That would be someone other than former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said yesterday that she was sure the Clintons wanted Weiner out of the race.)...
Hello? Everyone?

Please chill the hell out.

Anthony Weiner is not going to win the New York mayor's race. Anthony Weiner is not going to finish first or second in the Democratic primary and make it to a runoff. That means that this entire sorry episode is going to end on September 10, 2013 -- three years, eight weeks, and three days before Election Day 2016, when we will (presumably) decide whether Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States, and more than two years before the 2016 Iowa caucuses. That is, unless Weiner drops out before September 10, which could also happen.

Here's the thing: people like us who pay attention to politics know about Hillary Clinton's ties to Huma Abedin. But the vast majority of Americans simply don't follow politics that closely. They know about Weiner from late-night comics. They think he's a jerk. They may think his wife is exercising bad judgment. And maybe they're vaguely aware that his wife was a Hillary aide. But to expect people whose lives don't revolve around politics to focus on Huma Abedin and dislike her as much as they dislike Weiner, then extend that distaste to Hillary, and to sustain that distaste for years, well into a distant future when we know Weiner will be the answer to a trivia question, is just ridiculous. Ordinary folks just aren't as politics-obsessed as political pros and mavens.

Those of us who do care about these links already have a lot of data points in our heads about Hillary -- the vast majority of us knew a long time ago whether we'd vote for her in 2016, based on a great deal of history and a lot of thoughts about her and the state of American politics. We're certainly not going to make up our minds about 2016 based on Anthony Weiner.

Well, no one is. The rest of the public will start focusing on 2016 a long, long time from now. They're no more likely to deprive Hillary of a vote because of Weiner than right-wingers are to shy away from voting for whoever the GOP nominates because of Christine O'Donnell.


Rick Massimo said...

For instance, Abedin, with her husband at her side, declared last week, "Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs."

"Who didn't think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said that?" asked another prominent Democrat.

I don't even know what to say to that.

Steve M. said...

Yes, Bill and Hill are the first people in human history whose marriage was described as having ups and downs.

Victor said...

Years ago - at least 10 to 15 - Fred Dicker was a pretty damn good reporter on the NY City and State political scene.

Now, he's just another Murdoch clown, and a poodle, who's out there trying to bicker and dicker for his master's causes.

He writes for the NY Post, for FSM's sake - where the only thing not insulting to the intelligence of the poor dead fish you're about to wrap it in, is the damn sports section!

duffandnonsense said...

Looking from 'over here' to 'over there' I can't help noticing that the Democrat party seems to be excessively priapic. I believe there are at least three other Democrat candidates running in 'Noo Yawk' with well-earned reputations as 'swordsmen'. And, of course, Bill, who was an above average President especially for a Dem, set new standards of behaviour in the White House. By the way, I never did quite get the full story concerning that cigar . . .