<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; Clinton Corruption Plays Us for Fools-We Won&#8217;t Forget</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2001/03/clinton-corruption-plays-us-for-foolswe-wont-forget-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:36:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>Clinton Corruption Plays Us for Fools-We Won&#8217;t Forget</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2001/03/clinton-corruption-plays-us-for-foolswe-wont-forget-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2001/03/clinton-corruption-plays-us-for-foolswe-wont-forget-2/</link>
			<dc:creator>NYO Staff</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2001/03/clinton-corruption-plays-us-for-foolswe-wont-forget-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Some day soon, public interest in the Clinton</p>
<p>administration's final disgrace will fade, and the former President-if not his</p>
<p>wife, our junior Senator-will retreat from the headlines. Then, after an</p>
<p>appropriate interval, we will start seeing phony photo ops and pious public</p>
<p>pronouncements. Here and there, the Clintons will begin their latest</p>
<p>rehabilitation: Here is the junior Senator, hugging inner-city children; there</p>
<p>is the former President, lecturing his successor on the finer points of</p>
<p>statecraft.</p>
<p> Just as surely as Richard Nixon began planning his comeback</p>
<p>on the airplane that took him to San Clemente on Aug. 9, 1974, the Clintons</p>
<p>even now are preparing their future public-relations assault on the nation's</p>
<p>better nature. They assume-regrettably, not without reason-that the American</p>
<p>public in general, and New York voters in particular, will forget about the</p>
<p>pardons and the denials and the bald-faced lies that have sickened even their</p>
<p>most stalwart apologists.</p>
<p> They assume that disgust will run its course, that salvation</p>
<p>will be found in short attention spans, that the hyperactivity of the media age</p>
<p>will continue to blur collective memory. And if that doesn't work, well, they</p>
<p>figure they can rely on this heavily Democratic state to swallow whole their</p>
<p>claims to political victimhood. If public memory cannot be manipulated, there's</p>
<p>always the crass pandering that has served them so well in the past: The former</p>
<p>President will walk the length of 125th Street to remind his putative neighbors</p>
<p>that he was, after all, the first black President; the junior Senator will hold</p>
<p>news conferences to denounce right-wing conspirators. This combination of</p>
<p>cold-blooded racial politics and partisan hatemongering, the Clintons no doubt</p>
<p>believe, will keep New York pliant. And New York is the key to it all: Without</p>
<p>New York, there is no Senate seat, there is no imperial post-Presidency, there</p>
<p>is no access to the courtiers who can, with words, actions and money, douse the</p>
<p>dealings of grifters with the perfume of</p>
<p>public service.</p>
<p> So the Clintons are playing New Yorkers for fools. Although</p>
<p>they surely know by now that their actions and their words have offended even</p>
<p>their own supporters in the state they laughingly call home, they see no reason</p>
<p>to panic. Mrs. Clinton is in the first weeks of a six-year term of office; in</p>
<p>2006, they believe, who in New York will remember Marc Rich or Hugh Rodham? Who</p>
<p>will remember the White House furniture that found its way to their living room</p>
<p>in Chappaqua?</p>
<p> And so it will be up to New York, finally, to foil the</p>
<p>calculations of this coarse and manipulative couple. New Yorkers now have an</p>
<p>obligation, not only to themselves but to the nation: They must remember. They</p>
<p>must remember exactly how they feel about the Clintons at this moment, exactly</p>
<p>how they felt when their junior Senator claimed she didn't know that her own</p>
<p>brother was bidding for pardons from her husband. They must remember how their</p>
<p>stomachs turned when their junior Senator professed to be "heartbroken" about</p>
<p>her brother's rancid involvement in the great pardon auction. They must</p>
<p>remember their astonishment when Mrs. Clinton claimed to know nothing about the</p>
<p>Rich pardon, even though his ex-wife Denise donated more than $100,000 to the</p>
<p>former First Lady's Senate campaign-not to mention the $1.1 million that Ms.</p>
<p>Rich has given the national Democratic Party, and the $450,000 she gave to the</p>
<p>Clinton Presidential Library.</p>
<p> Mrs. Clinton is</p>
<p>heartbroken? She's always either heartbroken or</p>
<p>disappointed. What about her constituents? Doesn't she feel our shame? After</p>
<p>all, her husband felt our pain. Does she not understand our embarrassment? With</p>
<p>the nation and indeed the world watching, we entrusted her with the U.S. Senate</p>
<p>seat once held by Robert F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is clear</p>
<p>now that we have made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit</p>
<p>for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign. If federal</p>
<p>officeholders were subject to popular recall, she'd be thrown out of office by</p>
<p>springtime, the season of renewal.</p>
<p> Only two months ago, serious people believed that Mrs.</p>
<p>Clinton would be a candidate for President in 2004. Even true believers-gathered</p>
<p>in Manhattan's few remaining telephone booths-must admit that the plan to get</p>
<p>Mrs. Clinton back into the White House must now be relegated to history's</p>
<p>dustbin, where it will share space with the proceedings of the ClintonCare</p>
<p>commission, canceled checks to the Whitewater Development Corporation and the</p>
<p>billing records of the Rose Law Firm. Mrs. Clinton's political viability has</p>
<p>come to an end after fewer than eight weeks in office.</p>
<p> Unlike the tawdry dealings that led to Bill Clinton's</p>
<p>impeachment, the pardon scandal implicates Mrs. Clinton as much as, and perhaps</p>
<p>even more than, her husband. After all, it was her brother, not his, who accepted $400,000 to lobby for pardons</p>
<p>for a drug kingpin and a swindler. (Hugh Rodham says he'll give the money back-although</p>
<p>he hasn't done it just yet. Even if he does, the restitution won't make</p>
<p>everything right. Just ask a bank robber.) The Hasidic village in upstate New</p>
<p>Square voted en masse for her , not</p>
<p>him, last fall, after she met with the village's religious leader. The pardons</p>
<p>for four felons from the village who bilked the federal government out of $40</p>
<p>million raise questions about her</p>
<p>campaign, not his. It was her</p>
<p>campaign treasurer, not his, who helped and advised two of those felons with</p>
<p>their pardon applications.</p>
<p> Mrs. Clinton's press conference on Feb. 22 was a masterpiece</p>
<p>of evasion-so much so that she deserves a new (if you'll forgive us) moniker:</p>
<p>"Slick Hillie." She said she knew nothing about the pardons. She said she knew</p>
<p>nothing of her brother's involvement. No, no-she didn't concern herself with</p>
<p>these little matters, because she was very busy preparing to represent the</p>
<p>people of New York. If we had any questions about the pardons, she said, we</p>
<p>ought to ask him , the "him" in</p>
<p>question being her husband.</p>
<p> A move worthy of the Big He himself.</p>
<p> The Clintons have spent the last eight years treating the</p>
<p>American electorate with dismissive contempt. The rage unleashed in the last</p>
<p>few weeks is that of an aggrieved partner who has wised up at last. The</p>
<p>President's supporters in politics and the press understood all along that they</p>
<p>were in a high-risk relationship, but they had persuaded themselves that, in</p>
<p>his heart, Mr. Clinton loved what they loved. Their devotion only deepened when</p>
<p>they were warned to be wary of him; his enemies were their enemies, too.</p>
<p> Now, with Mr. Clinton stripped of the power and protection</p>
<p>of the Presidency, his supporters see him exactly as he is. And the image that</p>
<p>presents itself is terrifyingly close to the caricature his enemies drew of</p>
<p>him. They were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy</p>
<p>low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them. How</p>
<p>could they have been fooled so badly?</p>
<p> Even now, some continue to delude themselves. They attack</p>
<p>Mr. Clinton's actions, but they can't bring themselves to admit that Senator</p>
<p>Hillary also is at fault. Most of us, however, now realize that she is an</p>
<p>equally detestable partner in a scandal whose sleazy dealings finally have been</p>
<p>brought to light.</p>
<p> Conservative critics of the Clintons have been amused to see</p>
<p>the former President's friends writhing in agony on talk shows and in op-ed</p>
<p>columns in recent weeks. They wonder why other Democrats and liberal</p>
<p>commentators are so angry. It's not as though the Clintons have suddenly become</p>
<p>something they're not; they've been selling their principles to the highest</p>
<p>bidder for years. It's not as though they've betrayed their core values; what</p>
<p>core values did they ever have?</p>
<p> What the critics-understandably satisfied to see their</p>
<p>judgment confirmed yet again-miss is the amount of self-loathing in the Clinton</p>
<p>pile-on. Pro-Clinton commentators and colleagues now realize just how much they</p>
<p>compromised, just how much they excused, just how ridiculous they looked in</p>
<p>their defense of this corrupt couple. The end of the Clinton Presidency and the</p>
<p>beginning of another Bush era has inspired a round of reflection, and Clinton</p>
<p>supporters find they can't look at themselves in the mirror.</p>
<p> They are ashamed of themselves, which is a good deal more</p>
<p>than anybody can say of the Clintons. Indeed, they remain smug and</p>
<p>self-righteous, certain that New York will forget the early weeks of 2001,</p>
<p>certain that New York will embrace its junior Senator once again.</p>
<p> They have fooled the public before. They believe they can do</p>
<p>so again.</p>
<p> Let's hope that this time, they are wrong</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some day soon, public interest in the Clinton</p>
<p>administration's final disgrace will fade, and the former President-if not his</p>
<p>wife, our junior Senator-will retreat from the headlines. Then, after an</p>
<p>appropriate interval, we will start seeing phony photo ops and pious public</p>
<p>pronouncements. Here and there, the Clintons will begin their latest</p>
<p>rehabilitation: Here is the junior Senator, hugging inner-city children; there</p>
<p>is the former President, lecturing his successor on the finer points of</p>
<p>statecraft.</p>
<p> Just as surely as Richard Nixon began planning his comeback</p>
<p>on the airplane that took him to San Clemente on Aug. 9, 1974, the Clintons</p>
<p>even now are preparing their future public-relations assault on the nation's</p>
<p>better nature. They assume-regrettably, not without reason-that the American</p>
<p>public in general, and New York voters in particular, will forget about the</p>
<p>pardons and the denials and the bald-faced lies that have sickened even their</p>
<p>most stalwart apologists.</p>
<p> They assume that disgust will run its course, that salvation</p>
<p>will be found in short attention spans, that the hyperactivity of the media age</p>
<p>will continue to blur collective memory. And if that doesn't work, well, they</p>
<p>figure they can rely on this heavily Democratic state to swallow whole their</p>
<p>claims to political victimhood. If public memory cannot be manipulated, there's</p>
<p>always the crass pandering that has served them so well in the past: The former</p>
<p>President will walk the length of 125th Street to remind his putative neighbors</p>
<p>that he was, after all, the first black President; the junior Senator will hold</p>
<p>news conferences to denounce right-wing conspirators. This combination of</p>
<p>cold-blooded racial politics and partisan hatemongering, the Clintons no doubt</p>
<p>believe, will keep New York pliant. And New York is the key to it all: Without</p>
<p>New York, there is no Senate seat, there is no imperial post-Presidency, there</p>
<p>is no access to the courtiers who can, with words, actions and money, douse the</p>
<p>dealings of grifters with the perfume of</p>
<p>public service.</p>
<p> So the Clintons are playing New Yorkers for fools. Although</p>
<p>they surely know by now that their actions and their words have offended even</p>
<p>their own supporters in the state they laughingly call home, they see no reason</p>
<p>to panic. Mrs. Clinton is in the first weeks of a six-year term of office; in</p>
<p>2006, they believe, who in New York will remember Marc Rich or Hugh Rodham? Who</p>
<p>will remember the White House furniture that found its way to their living room</p>
<p>in Chappaqua?</p>
<p> And so it will be up to New York, finally, to foil the</p>
<p>calculations of this coarse and manipulative couple. New Yorkers now have an</p>
<p>obligation, not only to themselves but to the nation: They must remember. They</p>
<p>must remember exactly how they feel about the Clintons at this moment, exactly</p>
<p>how they felt when their junior Senator claimed she didn't know that her own</p>
<p>brother was bidding for pardons from her husband. They must remember how their</p>
<p>stomachs turned when their junior Senator professed to be "heartbroken" about</p>
<p>her brother's rancid involvement in the great pardon auction. They must</p>
<p>remember their astonishment when Mrs. Clinton claimed to know nothing about the</p>
<p>Rich pardon, even though his ex-wife Denise donated more than $100,000 to the</p>
<p>former First Lady's Senate campaign-not to mention the $1.1 million that Ms.</p>
<p>Rich has given the national Democratic Party, and the $450,000 she gave to the</p>
<p>Clinton Presidential Library.</p>
<p> Mrs. Clinton is</p>
<p>heartbroken? She's always either heartbroken or</p>
<p>disappointed. What about her constituents? Doesn't she feel our shame? After</p>
<p>all, her husband felt our pain. Does she not understand our embarrassment? With</p>
<p>the nation and indeed the world watching, we entrusted her with the U.S. Senate</p>
<p>seat once held by Robert F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is clear</p>
<p>now that we have made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit</p>
<p>for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign. If federal</p>
<p>officeholders were subject to popular recall, she'd be thrown out of office by</p>
<p>springtime, the season of renewal.</p>
<p> Only two months ago, serious people believed that Mrs.</p>
<p>Clinton would be a candidate for President in 2004. Even true believers-gathered</p>
<p>in Manhattan's few remaining telephone booths-must admit that the plan to get</p>
<p>Mrs. Clinton back into the White House must now be relegated to history's</p>
<p>dustbin, where it will share space with the proceedings of the ClintonCare</p>
<p>commission, canceled checks to the Whitewater Development Corporation and the</p>
<p>billing records of the Rose Law Firm. Mrs. Clinton's political viability has</p>
<p>come to an end after fewer than eight weeks in office.</p>
<p> Unlike the tawdry dealings that led to Bill Clinton's</p>
<p>impeachment, the pardon scandal implicates Mrs. Clinton as much as, and perhaps</p>
<p>even more than, her husband. After all, it was her brother, not his, who accepted $400,000 to lobby for pardons</p>
<p>for a drug kingpin and a swindler. (Hugh Rodham says he'll give the money back-although</p>
<p>he hasn't done it just yet. Even if he does, the restitution won't make</p>
<p>everything right. Just ask a bank robber.) The Hasidic village in upstate New</p>
<p>Square voted en masse for her , not</p>
<p>him, last fall, after she met with the village's religious leader. The pardons</p>
<p>for four felons from the village who bilked the federal government out of $40</p>
<p>million raise questions about her</p>
<p>campaign, not his. It was her</p>
<p>campaign treasurer, not his, who helped and advised two of those felons with</p>
<p>their pardon applications.</p>
<p> Mrs. Clinton's press conference on Feb. 22 was a masterpiece</p>
<p>of evasion-so much so that she deserves a new (if you'll forgive us) moniker:</p>
<p>"Slick Hillie." She said she knew nothing about the pardons. She said she knew</p>
<p>nothing of her brother's involvement. No, no-she didn't concern herself with</p>
<p>these little matters, because she was very busy preparing to represent the</p>
<p>people of New York. If we had any questions about the pardons, she said, we</p>
<p>ought to ask him , the "him" in</p>
<p>question being her husband.</p>
<p> A move worthy of the Big He himself.</p>
<p> The Clintons have spent the last eight years treating the</p>
<p>American electorate with dismissive contempt. The rage unleashed in the last</p>
<p>few weeks is that of an aggrieved partner who has wised up at last. The</p>
<p>President's supporters in politics and the press understood all along that they</p>
<p>were in a high-risk relationship, but they had persuaded themselves that, in</p>
<p>his heart, Mr. Clinton loved what they loved. Their devotion only deepened when</p>
<p>they were warned to be wary of him; his enemies were their enemies, too.</p>
<p> Now, with Mr. Clinton stripped of the power and protection</p>
<p>of the Presidency, his supporters see him exactly as he is. And the image that</p>
<p>presents itself is terrifyingly close to the caricature his enemies drew of</p>
<p>him. They were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy</p>
<p>low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them. How</p>
<p>could they have been fooled so badly?</p>
<p> Even now, some continue to delude themselves. They attack</p>
<p>Mr. Clinton's actions, but they can't bring themselves to admit that Senator</p>
<p>Hillary also is at fault. Most of us, however, now realize that she is an</p>
<p>equally detestable partner in a scandal whose sleazy dealings finally have been</p>
<p>brought to light.</p>
<p> Conservative critics of the Clintons have been amused to see</p>
<p>the former President's friends writhing in agony on talk shows and in op-ed</p>
<p>columns in recent weeks. They wonder why other Democrats and liberal</p>
<p>commentators are so angry. It's not as though the Clintons have suddenly become</p>
<p>something they're not; they've been selling their principles to the highest</p>
<p>bidder for years. It's not as though they've betrayed their core values; what</p>
<p>core values did they ever have?</p>
<p> What the critics-understandably satisfied to see their</p>
<p>judgment confirmed yet again-miss is the amount of self-loathing in the Clinton</p>
<p>pile-on. Pro-Clinton commentators and colleagues now realize just how much they</p>
<p>compromised, just how much they excused, just how ridiculous they looked in</p>
<p>their defense of this corrupt couple. The end of the Clinton Presidency and the</p>
<p>beginning of another Bush era has inspired a round of reflection, and Clinton</p>
<p>supporters find they can't look at themselves in the mirror.</p>
<p> They are ashamed of themselves, which is a good deal more</p>
<p>than anybody can say of the Clintons. Indeed, they remain smug and</p>
<p>self-righteous, certain that New York will forget the early weeks of 2001,</p>
<p>certain that New York will embrace its junior Senator once again.</p>
<p> They have fooled the public before. They believe they can do</p>
<p>so again.</p>
<p> Let's hope that this time, they are wrong</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2001/03/clinton-corruption-plays-us-for-foolswe-wont-forget-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
