Pundits go tabloid over politicians’ marriages
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006
It’s amazing what you can learn in a
supermarket checkout line. Like every
red-blooded American man, I yearn to comfort poor Jennifer for what Brad did to her. I’m also worried about Jessica and Nick, whoever they are. The tabloids say their marriage is on the rocks. Reportedly, so is George and Laura Bush’s 29-year marriage. According to a recent issue of the Globe, old Dubya’s hitting the Jack Daniels again. A “family friend” confided that “after their last fight over booze, [the president and first lady ] just stopped talking—period.” I hate it when that happens. Bill and Sen. Hillary Clinton, too. The New York Times recently put 2000 anonymously sourced words on its front page speculating about their marriage. Evidently, “several prominent New York Democrats” pronounced themselves concerned about, get this, an earlier Globe photo depicting Bill leaving a Manhattan restaurant with a dozen people, among them a hot, blond Canadian politician. The Times thought that couldn’t help but “fuel coverage in the gossip pages.” Now you’d ordinarily think “hot, blond Canadian politician” a contradiction in terms, like “leggy basset hound” or “worldchampion Chicago Cubs.” But the nation’s crackerjack political press was serving notice: If Hillary runs for president, it’ll make headlines any time Bill appears in the same time zone with an attractive woman. They’ll be sniggering like Beavis and Butthead on “Meet the Press” and “Hardball.” Are they, like, doing it ?
But hey, if the Times is going tabloid, why not go all the way ? Remember Bill’s alleged three-breasted mistress ? More photos, please. The difference is that I’m pretty sure tabloid scribes are laughing when they write that stuff.
Look, there’s no denying that Bill asked for it. But is this any way to run a democracy ? The Times interviewed 50 people in psychoanalyzing the Clintons. It did an exhaustive compilation of their schedules to determine how many nights a month they spend together: on average, 14, which is going to make most long-distance truckers, not to mention National Guardsmen in Iraq, envious.
Anyway, based on approximately a quarter-century of Clinton-watching (I live in Arkansas ), here’s my guide to press accounts of their marriage: Anybody who’s talking doesn’t know; anybody who knows ain’t talking.
Other people’s marriages are a foreign country where you don’t speak the language. Grow up, for heaven’s sake. This country has serious—indeed, graveproblems. Who cares how often the senator from New York gets laid ?
Maureen Dowd and David Broder, that’s who. Shortly after the Times’ tabloid-style exclusive, Hillary gave a speech at the National Press Club about energy policy. What the newspaper’s ace columnist got out of it was that she hated Hillary’s “blinding yellow pantsuit,” and that Al Gore must hate her for stealing his issue.
Broder, the so-called dean of Washington pundits, also hated the pantsuit. He wrote that the “buzz in the room was not about her speech,” but the Times’ gossip about the aforementioned alleged Canadian hussy. Who cares if Hillary has what Broder sneeringly described as “a rational plan that will, she says, not only move the nation substantially toward energy independence but improve living standards for almost every American” ?
No, the real issue to these jokers is that her husband’s a hound dog, she’s a cold, manipulative shrew and their marriage a politically inspired sham. The real issue is that Hillary thinks she’s smarter than you—or smarter than Dowd and Broder anyway, which may be the crux of the matter. Smarter than me, too, for the record, except that I got over being outclassed playing high school basketball. Some people never adjust.
That’s the only explanation I’ve got for a transcendentally inane piece of mind-reading by Slate’s editor, Jacob Weisberg. He scrutinized a list of Hillary’s top 10 iPod songs (Stones, Beatles, Aretha Franklin, the Eagles, U 2 ) and pronounced her a calculating phony.
“In point of fact,” he wrote, “I doubt that the relentlessly driven Hillary Clinton spends much time listening to music of any kind.” And whose iPod list proves him a Regular Guy ? Why, George W. Bush, of course (Creedence Clearwater, Van Morrison, George Jones ). “Bush,” see, “doesn’t worry about being politically correct or care what other people think of him.” Then how come Bush wears cowboy clothes and talks about “ranchin’” although there’s no evidence he’s ever owned cows or horses ? Because he’s indifferent to public opinion ? Please. All politicians care deeply what other people think of them. Will the Times profile the marriages of prospective GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain, with five wives between them ? Not likely. The scripted D. C. pundits have their theme for 2008. As in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic candidate’s an elitist phony, the Republican’s “authentic.” No matter who wins the nomination.
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online