How the Brits See Hillary (telegraph.co.uk)
- Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website
Thursday 1 February 2007
Whom does Hillary think she's fooling?
By Jan Moir
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 31/01/2007
Only a few days have passed since Hillary Clinton announced she is
running for president, but already it is clear that much forbearance
will be required from us all in the long months ahead. This is not
just because Mrs Clinton has started wearing ominous pastels and
smiling a lot, or appeared to enjoy a joke apparently about her
husband's sexcapades in the White House although these things do,
of course, matter. No, what is so lowering about Hillary and her rush
for power is the merciless, unapologetic, chisel-eyed way she has
pursued her presidential ambitions over the past few years, and her
blatant attempt to make over her naturally acrid persona into
something that American voters might find palatable.
Even from an ocean away it makes painful viewing, like watching
someone trying to fold a balloon into a matchbox, or form a rounded
human being out of leftover ectoplasm and a Martha Stewart wig. Yet
the New York senator seems unstoppable in her aspirations, attempting
a soft-focus rebrand on herself as a homemaker of meek views and
kindly disposition, ready to whisk around with the duster, cook Bill
a nice, eggy supper and sort out world problems at the same time.
In her new pearls and heart-shaped lockets, those telling little
trinkets she hopes will send out the subliminal message that she is a
biddable soubrette at heart, Mrs Clinton has become shameless in her
pursuit of high office and the Hillary-lite ideal. Her official
website reveals that the woman who once sneered at Tammy Wynette
wives who baked cookies now talks of the inner calm that she finds in
housework and gardening, and of how cleaning out her closets brings
relief from worrying about North Korea and Iran. "I can't get my arms
around that," she says, modestly acknowledging that there are bigger
global problems that she can contend with, although folding sweaters
and chucking out old tights, alongside the occasional skeleton, is an
enjoyable breeze in comparison.
What happened to the forbidding woman who first stepped into the
public arena 15 years ago, the militant feminist who was not afraid
to air her difficult views on stay-at-home mothers and abortion on
demand? Sister, she has long gone, dissolved in an acid bath of
burning ambition, alongside the First Lady Hillary who had an agenda
of her own in trying to push through healthcare reforms that appalled
many Americans, but fitted with her own bossy, liberal views. With
the voting landscape now dominated by moral values and faith-based
groups who wield enormous power and are easily affronted, Senator
Clinton's route march to the White House must remain free of
controversy, and if that means shaping herself into a vanilla vision
of impeccably centrist views and somehow distancing herself from her
own initial support of the Iraq war and other pesky matters such as
gun control and gay marriages, then so be it. Not that any of this is
going to be easy.
Mrs Clinton reminds too many Americans of the international
embarrassment and sexual psychodrama of her husband's administration,
an experience many would rather forget. Naturally, the far Right
doesn't like her much, but even among Democrat supporters, she
polarises opinion as if she was political Marmite: people either
absolutely love her or utterly loathe her, although all are agreed
that a little Hillary goes a long way.
There is even a thriving Hate Hillary industry that sells "I Hate
Hillary" T-shirts, mouse mats and car bumper stickers, and feeds on
the foaming bile of Hillary-hating blogs. Many of Mrs Clinton's
detractors find it particularly annoying that she has made gender the
focal point of her campaign, perhaps in an attempt to neuter the
enthusiasm being whipped up around Barack Obama's bid to become the
first black US president. "I'm a woman and I'm a mom," croons Hillary-
lite, while complaining about the double standards she must endure
regarding comments on her clothes and her hair. Yet none of this is
trivial. Everything Mrs Clinton now does and says is a deliberate
political statement, from the honey streaks in her hairdo to the
girly pinks she chooses to camouflage herself in, although the effect
of the latter is unconvincing: think killer shark prowling the
shallows in a party frock.
Of course, all politicians are guilty of a little repositioning and
shaving of principles when the occasion suits, but until Hillary
Rodham Clinton came along, no one has ever dared to politically morph
themselves to quite such an astounding degree. Will it work? Let's
Excellent command of what hill/bill are up to,loved your article.Glad
you figured it out.The Barbara Bush pearls are too obvious for
words.As an American,she is positively frightening.They are ready to
unleash the pit bulls on Obama or whoever lends a threat. Her "vast"
ambition of sleeping in the white house again is dangerous.
Read "Hell to Pay" Barbara Olsen. Keep writing your witty
truth.Thanks so much.
Posted by Tatiana on January 31, 2007 5:15 PM
Jan Moir, you have this woman pegged better than many Americans have.
I am afraid she is pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant. If
I had to sum up one word to describe that woman it would
be "dangerous". Even Slick Willie is scared of her.
Posted by Ruth Lindemann on January 31, 2007 4:43 PM
Dear Mark C. Al Gore? Seriously? The man is a political Zelig - an
empty-shell who will morph himself to whatever the prevailing
politcal need is. First he was was the intellectual/professorial foil
to Mr. Clinton's down-home good 'ol boy. Later in the 90's it was Mr.
Tech and internet inventor. Now it is Mr. Green and global-ecodoom
prophet. As for being self-made - don't forget Dad was a Senator who
basically handed him his first jobs in State Govt and Congress
Posted by Paul on January 31, 2007 4:18 PM
Report this comment
..Ditto M. Fernandez!!!!
7-generation Texan also proud to be of English Descent!!!
Posted by Nancee Chambers on January 31, 2007 3:40 PM
President Bush has his faults; however, I doubt that when he leaves
the White House that he will take half the government furniture with
Posted by Barbara on January 31, 2007 3:25 PM
"Gore got there on his own"?!?!?!?!
Is that the same Al Gore raised mostly in velvety DC hotels where his
father was a senator?
To quote Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, you're walking around blind
without a cane, pal.
Posted by PB Morsley on January 31, 2007 3:17 PM
...if Hillary gets elected..."There will be Hell to pay"..thank you
Posted by steve on January 31, 2007 3:15 PM
Nobody's ever done "aw-shucks" better than Slick Willie.
Posted by Linda Chambers on January 31, 2007 2:35 PM
Hillary has been president already, just that Bill had his name on
the office door.
Posted by Steve Ipswich on January 31, 2007 1:38 PM
Aaron Clausen was the first, but someone was sure to mention the myth
of Bush's intellectual poverty. Perhaps he would have preferred kerry
to win in the last presidential election, despite him having achieved
a slightly lower grade at university than Bush. I never was a Bush
supporter, but also never believed the myths.
Perhaps he would also like to see Hillary Clinton in power, despite
the lies she has been caught out in, in at least one case allowing a
White House official to lie under oath for her.
Posted by Richard on January 31, 2007 1:23 PM
THank you, madam. You have brilliantly written down, for all the
world to see, just exactly how so very American women feel about this
harridan. She absolutley is a reminder of what her partner did in the
Oval Office and she is in 'no way' a compliment to the AMerican
Woman. We dislike her manipulating us with the phone makeover...we
want her to go away and take her hubby with her...alas that will not
happen. Let's hope that we do not see her taking that oath of office
in 2008.... this will be a doome country.
Posted by Sandra on January 31, 2007 1:03 PM
28 years of Clintons and Bushes is quite enough, thank you.
Her politics almost do not matter. If she comes back the whole
Clinton crew will come with her. I think we deserve better.
Posted by Ed on January 31, 2007 1:01 PM
Great article! I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't know of any conservatives that are afraid of Hillary Clinton.
It's more like, "will someone please get the hook?" We've already
figured out the plot, attempting to dazzle with the costume changes
does nothing to improve the play.
BTW, she's already signaled that she doesn't want to deal with the
burden of that war thingee. Even though she wore the costume of a
hawk as she cast her vote for war, now she's dressed as a cameleon.
Posted by Missy on January 31, 2007 12:54 PM
Surely by 2008 we in the U.S. will be thoroughly saturated with
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton fatigue. We need new faces and attitudes.
Posted by B. Watts on January 31, 2007 12:08 PM
Aaron, President Bush (of the "aw-shucks" persona) graduated from
Yale and has an MBA from Harvard. His first opponent (Al Gore)
flunked out of journalism school and the seminary - and is considered
Brilliant! - go figure
Posted by Mike Hagin, American Citizen on January 31, 2007 11:35 AM
I don't like Hillary Clinton any more than the author but this bile-
filled article is sickening.
It is typical women's bitch journalism, dripping with viciousness and
totally lacking in any sense of curiousity.
This is women's stuff for women and should not be confused with
journalism, proper. Hopefully in the new era of media ahead, that
proper distinction will be restored.
Posted by Daggo on January 31, 2007 11:26 AM
Yes, Hillary *would* be worse than Bush.
See Telegraph's past U.S. correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's
book The Secret Life of Bill Clinton for details.
Posted by Lou Coatney (1st Alamein) on January 31, 2007 9:56 AM
Hillary Clinton was never a First Lady in the traditional mould: you
had a feeling she could run rings round Bill - and that it should
have been her that went for the Presidency the first time round back
in the early 1990s.
That she did not make that move shows her in a different light to
that which she would portray herself in today. The public have seen
too much of Hillary Clinton in different guises. The long game is not
always right in politics.
Pundits have commented that with Hillary you either love her or you
hate her: in an instant the focus is the individual not the issues.
This is the wrong foot to get off on in a campaign to be President of
the United States.
Posted by simon coulter on January 31, 2007 8:22 AM
Re Hillary Clinton, perhaps she used Tony "I'm a straight kind of
guy" Blair as a role model. His political make over was equally
Posted by Neil Jones on January 31, 2007 7:56 AM
Everything you need to know about Hillary is in Christopher
Hitchen's "No One Left to Lie To".
Posted by M. Fernandez on January 31, 2007 7:11 AM
Absoutly marvalous! I am glad that even as you in the UK, sink in to
socalist slavery, you have a clear eye on US politics.
Makes me proud to be of English Descent.
Posted by William J. Wilkins on January 31, 2007 2:41 AM
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007.