Hil­lary as seen by of­fi­cial Washington

‘Shat­tered’ presents a par­tial view of her elec­tion loss

The Washington Times Daily - - OPINION - By R. Em­mett Tyrrell Jr. R. Em­mett Tyrrell Jr. is edi­tor in chief of The Amer­i­can Spec­ta­tor. He is au­thor of “The Death of Lib­er­al­ism,” pub­lished by Thomas Nel­son Inc.

We call it Kul­tursmog, it be­ing that col­lec­tion of at­ti­tudes, ideas, tastes and per­son­ages that are pol­luted by the pol­i­tics of the left and that pre­dom­i­nate on both coasts. And who are we? We are the free­thinkers who are im­mune to the Kul­tursmog by virtue of our nat­u­ral skep­ti­cism and reliance on em­piri­cism, which is to say, reliance on ev­i­dence. Thus, we un­der­stand and gen­er­ally ac­cept that Don­ald Trump won the 2016 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. We also ac­cept that Hil­lary Clin­ton, as­sisted by her hubby and their con­sul­tants, lost the elec­tion. In fact, she lost the elec­tion af­ter out­spend­ing Don­ald two to one and turn­ing many of her con­sul­tants into mil­lion­aires.

Now the ques­tion be­ing asked by po­lit­i­cal wizards is why Hil­lary lost de­spite be­ing the smartest can­di­date, the most vir­tu­ous can­di­date, and, oh yes, the can­di­date with the best sense of hu­mor since W.C. Fields, though she is a lot pret­tier. And the ques­tion be­ing asked by us — that is to say, us skep­tics — is: Has the Kul­tursmog learned any­thing since Hil­lary’s de­feat, by which we mean her lat­est de­feat? You will re­call that in her 2016 race she was dubbed the “in­evitable” one, at least un­til the clock struck 8 p.m. on Nov. 8, much as she was dubbed the “in­evitable” one through the elec­tion cy­cle of 2008 un­til there emerged a lit­tle-known com­mu­nity or­ga­nizer.

In­ci­den­tally, does any­one won­der how Can­di­date Trump would deal with Can­di­date Obama? That would be a cam­paign for the ages.

Now there has ap­peared from the hazy va­pors of the smog a book at­tempt­ing to ex­plain the elec­tion, and all the smog’s out­lets are re­view­ing it. The book is ti­tled “Shat­tered: Inside Hil­lary’s Clin­ton’s Doomed Cam­paign.” The best thing about it is the ti­tle, “Shat­tered.” Af­ter that it is pretty un­even. There are a few glints of un­der­stand­ing, but from what I can tell from read­ing “Shat­tered” and its reviews, the Kul­tursmog re­mains se­curely in the dark. Ac­cord­ing to it, Hil­lary was the vic­tim of plots by FBI Di­rec­tor James B. Comey, Rus­sian hack­ers, er­rors made by her staff, the sin­is­ter do­ings of “the de­plorables,” and misog­yny. Six decades af­ter the dawn of fem­i­nism, with the fem­i­nists’ fin­ger­prints all over the re­pub­lic, Hil­lary still can­not get a break. Though I am told by re­li­able sources that up there in the Kul­tursmog she is con­tem­plat­ing an­other sui­ci­dal run in 2020. She does not take no for an an­swer.

As I say, there are glints in “Shat­tered” that sug­gest the au­thors have learned a thing or two about the new po­lit­i­cal scene that we were be­ing pre­sented with in 2016, though there are few ref­er­ences to Don­ald Trump and the unique cam­paign he waged. He proved to be the finest cam­paigner in my adult life go­ing all the way back to Bob Kennedy in 1968. And Hil­lary, af­ter all the ab­surd lau­da­tions that the Kul­tursmog has basted her in, is about the worst. As the au­thors say, “The cam­paign was an unholy mess, fraught with tan­gled lines of author­ity, petty jeal­ousies, dis­torted pri­or­i­ties, and no sense of pur­pose.” Hil­lary never could ex­plain why she was run­ning for pres­i­dent. The only other can­di­date who had trou­ble an­swer­ing that ques­tion was, as I re­call, Teddy Kennedy as he sat frozen be­fore CBS’ Roger Mudd in 1980.

So “Shat­tered” does pro­vide some an­swers as to why Hil­lary lost and what the Kul­tursmog has learned, which is very lit­tle. One learns this by not­ing what the smog neglects to men­tion. For in­stance, there is only a brief men­tion of why she nearly col­lapsed on a New York street and noth­ing about the dark glasses she wore, pro­vok­ing her crit­ics to ques­tion her health. Oth­ers get angry in this book and even use coarse lan­guage but not Hil­lary, de­spite years of witnesses quot­ing her foul mouth. There is no men­tion of her elec­tion night tantrum fu­eled by al­co­hol. Why not at least men­tion that her crit­ics were lev­el­ing such charges that night?

Fi­nally, there are people who ought to be men­tioned, but are not. Why no David Brock, her con­tro­ver­sial ally, or Sid­ney Blu­men­thal, a long­time ad­viser? The best chap­ter in this book is the chap­ter on Hil­lary’s server and her fail­ure to deal with it hon­estly and ex­pe­di­tiously. But by not men­tion­ing Mr. Blu­men­thal and the 23 clas­si­fied memos that the Daily Caller re­ported from his cor­re­spon­dence with her (they were clas­si­fied as “Con­fi­den­tial” and “Se­cret”), knowl­edge­able read­ers will sus­pect a cover-up.

This is why when we skep­tics come across some ar­ti­fact fash­ioned by the Kul­tursmog, we sense that it will be in some way un­trust­wor­thy. We are rarely wrong. Just over the week­end, The Washington Post re­ported polls that sug­gest Don­ald Trump’s days are num­bered. It is not un­til read­ers get to the very end of the re­port that they discover Don­ald Trump still beats Hil­lary 43 per­cent to 40 per­cent — an even wider mar­gin than on elec­tion night.

By not men­tion­ing Mr. Blu­men­thal and the 23 clas­si­fied memos that the Daily Caller re­ported from his cor­re­spon­dence with her, knowl­edge­able read­ers will sus­pect a cover-up.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.