The New Yorker

Hillary, examined

The current issue of The New Yorker reviews two of the current crop of books about Hillary Clinton; and as is often the case with that magazine, the crown jewel of the New York publishing universe, the review is perhaps more perceptive on its subject than the books likely are themselves. After all, literally dozens of works later, what more is there to know about the most written-about figure on our political stage?

Turns out, a lot. Consider this quote, about her infamous mishandling of health care:

Clinton’s biggest blunder, as Bernstein tells it, was to offend the very legislators whose support she needed most. At a retreat for Democratic senators in the spring of 1993, Clinton was asked whether it was realistic to pursue such an ambitious health-care program, given her husband’s many other legislative initiatives. She responded that the Administration was prepared to “demonize” those who opposed the task force’s recommendations.

“That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,” Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, told Bernstein. “You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.”


Michael Bouldin's picture

| | |

The New Yorker gets it right

As I blogged here recently, the Republic is having a Rome moment; now, The New Yorker sums up the feeling on this week's cover.

I knew it would be bad, back during the 2000 campaign and after the Supreme Court coup; how bad, nobody could have foreseen.


Michael Bouldin's picture

| | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Poll

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1453 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

He's gone; the policy --strategic non-communication-- may still be in place.

First, McClellan was a necessary figure in what I have called Rollback-- the attempt to downgrade the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country. It had once been accepted wisdom that by carefully "feeding the beast" an Administration would be rewarded with better coverage in the long run. Rollback, the policy for which McClellan signed on, means not feeding but starving the beast, while reducing its effectiveness as an interlocutor with the President and demonstrating to all that the fourth estate is a joke.


— Jay Rosen, old school journalist in new media clothes
PressThink: The Jerk at the Podium: Scott McClellan Steps Away


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify