Drudge Interview

Radar Magazine has an interview with Matt Drudge, conducted in part by Camille Paglia. Drudge has a few interesting comments. For one, he is a pro-lifer but not part of any organized religion. There are more people like this out there than the media would have us believe. (I’m a pro-lifer, but Roman Catholic, so I’m part of the Evil Religious Right, so no surprise there.)

Of most interest to me were these comments about Hillary Clinton’s future:

DRUDGE: Oh, she’s a superstar. She’s the brightest light on Broadway. She’s Harvey Weinstein’s First Lady of our Heart. She is the Democrat to beat in ’08, and her opponent may turn out to be Rudy Giuliani. And if I had to predict right now, I would think she could clean up.

PAGLIA: Really? But she can’t even give a speech. She has no ability to interact with –people in a spontaneous way.

DRUDGE: Let’s put it this way: I’m staying alive just to see her run against Giuliani. I think you will see a dynamic, a red-versus-blue rematch, that would just fascinate the country. Camille, as you remember, one of the finest performances we’ve seen out of Washington was the first lady coming out of the grand jury office wearing a dragon coat and white face powder. And I expect much more from Hillary as we ramp up for the next election. She has decided to go undercover and play it very calm and very conservative and Miss Marm. But she will surround herself with the Blumenthals, the Harold Ickeses, and everything else we loved and hated about the ’90s. The corruption, the crimes, the craziness will all come back to the fore.

I agree with every single word about Hillary. And I am filled with dread and loathing. My only quibble is that I am holding to my earlier prediction that Hillary will run in ’04. The fact that Terry McAuliffe survived the 2002 debacle shows me that the Clintons still have control, and that the money spigots will open for Hillary. Her book just came out. There are nine empty suits to divide and conquer. There is wartime-popular Bush in the White House during a recession — its all in place. Clinton II will launch this Fall.

No one else seems to agree with me on this. But what the Hell. I’m sticking with my prediction.

I also disagree that Giuliani will be the R nominee in ’08. Any R nominee has to be at least nominally pro-life and Giuliani isn’t. He should be in charge of Homeland Security. Or Iraq.

It’s a pretty good, if overlong, inteview, and it is good to see nutty Camille Paglia back in action.

(via the LA Examiner, via Instapundit.)

12 thoughts on “Drudge Interview”

  1. Hillary will run the second she believes she can win. Not unlike a vulture who scurries back to the road-kill after the car passes by.

  2. Of course, we may well get a race of her versus Rudy Giuliani for Senator from New York in 2006.

  3. Lex,

    I can’t find any fault in your analysis. Bill Clinton was a weak candidate in ’92. When Bush Sr’s apparent strength discouraged stronger Dem candidates from running, Clinton saw an opportunity and rolled the dice. Hillary could do something similar now.

    The talking heads make the mistake of framing the issue as Hillary vs. the other Demo candidates, when what they should look at is Hillary’s risk/payoff matrix. She will stand out as a candidate in ’04 because her Demo competition is weak. If Bush remains strong, she doesn’t have to run, or can use her campaign to build an organization for ’08. But if Bush falters she immediately becomes the front runner. Her odds may actually be worse in ’08 because she is more likely to face serious Democratic competition then. So running in ’04 may be a good bet from her point of view.

    And the fact that few people seem to agree with you I think means it’s more likely that you’re right.

  4. Paglia also stated, (I’m paraphrasing because I cannot find the exact quote)that with the years of allegations, rumor, and innuendo generated by Hubby Bill’s philandering, that Hillary got exactly what she deserved. She is not the inspiration to or liberator of women, rather, she has done enormous damage to women in general and women’s causes in particular.

  5. I think you have to evaluate her as an individual. She probably did help to discredit feminism as an organized leftist political movement, but that’s not necessarily related to whether she harmed or helped individual women or “women’s causes” (which are really universal causes). If I were an ambitious woman I might not like hearing that my success or failure was somehow dependent on the antics of some scummy pol.

    OTOH a lot of women don’t agree with me. Thus, for example, some otherwise intelligent women I’m acquainted with think it would be a great triumph if a woman – any woman – were elected president, a view which strikes me as narrow minded and reckless.

  6. Predictions at this point are useless. There could be another terrorist attack. That would change everything.

  7. I disagree with you Jonathan. Hillary takes political cynicism and exploitation to new heights. To call her a “strong woman” makes a mockery of all the women who have suffered spousal abuse, both physical and mental, and had the courage to extricate themselves from the situation. It denigrates the institution to manufacture a sham marriage, on the world stage no less, and then sell the story on a book tour cum political campaign. And that does lasting damage to the concepts of women as individual, independent members of society, and as equal partners rather than subordinates in a marriage.
    I do believe that the election of a qualified woman to The Presidency would be a triumph, as would a Jew, another Roman Catholic, etc. be a triumph for our society, illustrating that we have gotten past another asinine prejudice.

  8. Andy,

    You have a point. Holding someone like Hillary up as a model mocks other women.

    I don’t object to electing women to political office. I object to electing women merely because they are women. I’d certainly vote for a better qualified female candidate over a less-well-qualified male one, but then why should a candidate’s sex even be a variable?

  9. Andy, whether or not I think Hillary should be considered an inspiration to women, I know she is an inspiration to the feminist core of the Donk party. They like her. They will work for her. They will put up with her running to the center to get elected, knowing it is a ruse.

    I’m really only interested in her as a political phenomenon, as a threat. Substantively, she is a ruthless and dishonest leftist politician. Nothing special there. The interesting questions are: Will she run? will she get nominated if she does? Will she beat W if she does? I say, “yes” and “probably” and “maybe”.

  10. I agree that she has more political life in her than I can stomach. She did get elected Senator, right? The same money will be behind her in a run for prez. And, cynically, I’m not so sure it doesn’t boil down to the best use of money when it comes to winning election.

    I haven’t heretofore been politically active at the grassroots level, but I guarantee if (when) Hillary runs for prez, I will be out ACTIVELY campaigning against her.

    Perhaps a question is, can enough people stomach seeing Bill as the first first-gentleman?

    Ok, I’ve made myself sick now, gotta run!

  11. cj, your post points out something else worth noting: Hillary mobilizes the Donk base — but she also mobilizes the R base. But, but, but. The fear is that the hatred you and I and so many share will alienate moderate suburban voters who really don’t follow politics and will take Hillary as a well-spoken, well-intentioned lady and wonder why she is being so viciously attacked. Also, the mere fact that she is female will bring in a lot of non-thinking female suburban voters who will just like the idea of a “historic first”. If they were on the fence, an over-emotional anti-Hillary campaign will backfire.

    Oh, the tangled webs. I hope to heck I’m wrong and she just sits it out.

  12. I actually admire her political skills, and her ability to get things done in the Senate. She is formidable and I wish we had her on our side.

    That said, I don’t think she stands a chance in ’08, unless the Republicans screw up badly. Tom Shales critiqued her recent Babawa Wawa interview, and talked about her “chilly chilliness”. Yeah, she’s got a rep for being cold; on the Hill, if you are having a reception and run out of ice, she can chill the punch just by walking into the room. Her husband, the crazed goatboy, was completely the opposite, and to some extent, Bush gets by on his charm and warmth. I’m not sure Hillary! projects that.

    That being said, we could do a lot worse. For instance… almost all the Dems now running.

    Had 9/11 occurred on the watch of any of the nine whinge-wraiths, I have no doubt that even today, we’d be tied up in the UN, begging for a “stronger condemnation” of the Taliban’s recent (9/02) attacks. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that if we were attacked while Hillary was in office, not only would the Taliban be gone, but Saudi America would be the 51st state by now. She is harder than a bag of hammers, and one of the few Dems who I believe would send a message to foreign enemies, “don’t tread on me.” And frankly, I’d vote for her over some of the spineless functionaries who are likely to be mentioned as Bush successors in the Republican party for the same reason.

    Of course she’d bring the same hard-edged attitude to dealing with political enemies as well, and in her hands PATRIOT II could be a claymore, but there you have it.

Comments are closed.