Oh crap, I’ve done it to myself again. I was reading something that made me want to look up someone’s relationship to Sally Quinn and, WHOOSH, I went right down that same old rabbit hole. Why do I do this? It happens to me at least twice a year. One minute I am minding my own business, and the next I am reading a Sally Quinn column about Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin’s marriage. I must have some kind of irrepressible masochistic desire to hurt myself.
The way Quinn and Ruth Marcus tag-teamed Ms. Abedin was a wonder to behold, which only confirmed for me my suspicion that these two ladies are frequent brunch partners. I’m sure they were both only trying to help.
But why did I care? How did I get here? Is there any hope for finding my way back? Is this microphone on?
I vaguely remember passing this spot about an hour ago, which must mean that I am successfully backtracking. I didn’t think I’d want to read 800 words on what Sally Quinn thought of Hillary Clinton’s first (ever) tweet. And I was right about that.
On the other hand, here is something that I always remember fondly because…how could I not enjoy revisiting the most Sally Quinn thing that Sally Quinn ever did?
That public bit on her complicated love/hate (mostly hate) family dynamics cost Quinn her regular column in the Post but she still managed to get a piece in there in mid-2010 suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap jobs.
Another scenario is that Obama could wait and choose Hillary as his running mate for 2012 and then simply have her step down as secretary of state so she could start campaigning. The catch with that plan, however, is that it would make Biden a lame duck and Obama would probably have to appoint an interim secretary of state. At any rate, this plan is being discussed in administration circles.
Take it seriously.
Eh, no.
So, here we have some not-too-distant history of Sally Quinn suggesting that Hillary Clinton should be (and would be) appointed vice-president, which makes me think that she has a complicated relationship with the First Couple of Little Rock. Also, reality.
Long before the Blue Dress, Sally Quinn had a problem with the interlopers from the Ozarks.
“This beautiful capital,” President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, “is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way.” With that, the new president sent a clear challenge to an already suspicious Washington Establishment.
But after the sordid details of l’affaire Lewinsky became public knowledge, Quinn’s mortification took on Washington Monument dimensions.
But this particular community happens to be in the nation’s capital. And the people in it are the so-called Beltway Insiders — the high-level members of Congress, policymakers, lawyers, military brass, diplomats and journalists who have a proprietary interest in Washington and identify with it.
They call the capital city their “town.”
And their town has been turned upside down.
With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal…
…”It’s much more personal here,” says pollster Geoff Garin. “This is an affront to their world. It affects the dignity of the place where they live and work. . . . Clinton’s behavior is unacceptable. If they did this at the local Elks Club hall in some other community it would be a big cause for concern.”
“He came in here and he trashed the place,” says Washington Post columnist David Broder, “and it’s not his place.”
…Muffie Cabot, who as Muffie Brandon served as social secretary to President and Nancy Reagan, regards the scene with despair. “This is a demoralized little village,” she says. “People have come from all over the country to serve a higher calling and look what happened. They’re so disillusioned. The emperor has no clothes. Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn’t quite as sordid as this.”
And so on.
I’m pausing here to say that, despite appearances, I think I may be back on the intended path. It leads to something about a video. Ah, yes, up ahead, there it is. It’s Ruth Marcus (“Hillary Clinton’s insultingly vapid video”) tag-teaming with Richard Cohen (“The icky commercial she used to announce her candidacy was hardly a position paper.”)
I knew this would lead me to Sally Quinn’s dining room.
I’ve never been there before, mind you, but I seem to remember that very early on in President Clinton’s first term the denizens of this dining room were scandalized by Bill’s penchant for going jogging in shorts that did nothing to disguise his pasty white thighs.
Yes, but in any case, it is Richard Cohen and Ruth Marcus who are dishing here about the “insultingly vapid and icky commercial” that Hillary Clinton used to introduce her campaign. Now, remember that we were not long ago talking about Hillary’s first (ever) tweet, which happened to come with a little bio that didn’t mention her faith tradition and therefore caused a titter of disapproval at the Quinn salon. This mistake was repeated with this campaign introduction video, which Peter Beinart didn’t miss.
All that cultural conservatism is gone in the video she issued last night. It’s not just the image of a gay male couple holding hands while announcing their impending wedding, followed later by what appears to be a lesbian couple. It’s not just the biracial couple. Or the brothers speaking Spanish. It’s also the absence of culturally conservative imagery: no clergymen, no police, one barely noticeable church.
“Yes, yes, did you see it? The church was barely noticeable!” Tut tut, and so on.
Richard Cohen didn’t really notice the totally gay aspects of the video: “It looked like one of those Vaseline-lensed dog-food commercials, so lacking substance that I wondered if I had summoned the wrong video from the Internet.”
I don’t quite know what to make of that imagery, but I think I will step slowly away.
Meanwhile, Ms. Marcus had this to say: “The more I watch Hillary Clinton’s announcement video, the less I like it. This may be putting it mildly.”
I’m beginning to feel like the Villagers still feel like the Clintons “came in here and trashed the place, and it’s not their place.”
Could the video really be this bad? Marcus says it is “a Verizon commercial without the substance.” And then she joins Cohen in using a strangely out-of-place and basically inept reference to a dog.
The message of Clinton 2015 was different: She’s in the race, albeit one minute and 30 seconds into the video, but she’s really in to win you, the voters, over. Just like you, planting your garden or trying to keep the dog out of the trash while the home renovations proceed (good luck with that), she’s embarked on a new venture.
I seriously can’t believe the lack of editing assistance these columnists receive.
If you really want to start to get a handle on the pathological almost schizophrenic hold the Clintons have over Sally Quinn’s dining room, just look at how Marcus concludes her critique of this video:
…there will be time enough for policy. Indeed, no politician does policy more seriously, with more detailed attention to the briefing books and seminars with the experts, than Hillary Clinton. This combination of intelligence and drive is actually a good reason to elect her president. Not that you would know it from this launch.
And Cohen:
Scanning the mob of Republicans now seeking the White House, there’s no one who approaches Clinton in experience or standing…
…As for the rest of the field, it is a political bedlam, quarreling, quibbling and kvetching over same-sex marriage, abortion and immigration, and in general waging the good fight against social progress.
So, after all this complaining about a video, we are told that Hillary Clinton has tremendous substance, does policy seriously, and has no peer in experience or standing.
And we’re told that it is a great sin for her to spend even a moment not focusing on policy and substance by people who just used their precious columns to ignore the stakes in this election completely in favor of critiquing a fucking video and basically savaging the candidate that they ostensibly favor.
I will close this interminable piece with these pearls of wisdom from Sally Quinn about Hillary Clinton’s first (ever) tweet:
Hillary Clinton is well known for her faith. She went to Sunday school and attended church all of her life, taught Sunday school, was a member of the altar guild and youth groups. When she came to Washington in 1993, she joined a Bible study group. She says she was sent daily scriptures from her group. She was dubbed Saint Hillary at one point for her religious leanings and even made a speech referencing Rabbi Michael Lerner’s “The Politics of Meaning.” When she became a senator, she joined the Senate Prayer Breakfast. She has always been supportive of federal funding for faith-based initiatives…
…The question is, does the Lord want Hillary to be president? Does she want to be president? Pundits took her tweet to be the launch of a presidential campaign. Yet it’s perfectly obvious that America will not vote for someone who is not a self-affirmed believer in God. We have a black president, and we will have a female president, a Hispanic president, a gay president and probably even a Muslim president before we have an atheist president. Those who talk openly about their own faith are more likely to appeal to the American public than those who don’t; we have even seen many shamelessly exploit religion for their own political purposes.
So if this tweet is her announcement that she is running, why would she describe herself as “wife, mom” but and not include “person of faith,” which, if you look at her background, she surely is?
In conclusion:
I know you’re kind of sick of Hillary, but don’t worry.
Once the Republicans and the press are done with her, you’ll be defending her like a mama badger.
So common (and exceedingly tiresome) that former sinners are the first ones to cast stones at those who behave just like them and hide behind their new found religious posturing. Quinn was to Bradley what Lewinsky was to Clinton except Sally got the old guy to dump is wife. As a woman who has no respect for adulterers or men or women who sleep their way to professional success and/or power, nothing Quinn writes or does is of any interest to me. It’s people like her that have made the Beltway trashier and politics more toxic. Distractions from what we should be paying attention to.
Molly Ivins:
Molly wasn’t alone during those years. We all did that during those years. Leaving little to no time to attend to the horrendous legislative and executive crap that was being pushed through. Every time I see bloggers rushing to defend Hillary when she’s done something that warrants minor or major criticism, it’s a reminder of how exhausting and counterproductive of goo-goo those years were for liberals/lefties. How by 2000 we had had enough of them and it was a relief to anticipate their departure and the election of President Gore.
Like Molly in 2006 the thought of their return with their merry band of courtiers was stomach churning.
Relief again. That was it for them — or so Hillary said after Obama won the general election. But they’re baack. Stronger than ever because in the interim they better succeeded this time around at turning the national Democratic Party into the Clinton party. (Technically, they had accomplished that for 2004, but George was in too strong a position for Hillary to challenge him that year. The disastrous results in the 2002 and 2004 elections led to rank-and-file Democrats demanding a management change and that in turn weakened their hold on the party by 2008 just enough that others had a chance at the nomination.)
It’s entirely possible that the GOP will nominate another lame-ass candidate and Hillary will win in 2016. But the party will continue to be as weak as it has been every time Clinton is the major and practically exclusive power in it. 2014 was a sequel. Some love sequels. Many do their best to ignore their existence.
You know, the most irrational Hillary-haters at the Frog Pond almost all are also major haters of the Washington Post.
Which is odd, if you think about it, since the Post supports this portion of their world view so thoroughly.
I hate these people. I have a piece of my drafts is going to unload on these garbage bags later today
Why would anybody read Sally Quinn? Talk about vapid.
just don’t get lost in that rabbit hole. It’s scary down there.
OMG
and in the first box quote, what does she mean by “being discussed in administration circles”? by herself and a lunch partner?
Muffie Cabot?
I’m thinking I must start liking the video
As the DC Hostess with the Mostest, she’s supposed to know everything that is going on in the White House.
But she doesn’t and it makes her stabby.
Muffie — traditions in the country club set do live on. (and easy to ape if Muffie wasn’t spawned in one.
Gloria Upson (a fictional progenitor from “Auntie Mame”)
I am having trouble giving any thought to what comes out of the Post, I really tried to read this but it’s too inside baseball for me and I keep track of politics daily.
Too inside baseball?
Are you seriously telling me that you dont want to know more?
I recall this kerfuffle. how can these people think they know anything about politics and diplomacy and not have nipped this problem in the bud [unless they wanted a major family conflict to play out; sometimes ppl just pretend they didn’t want it to happen; sort of like the war with Iran that will play out if the republicans get their way]
Yes, can do without knowing more.
The second Mrs. Bradlee seemed more interesting and real — Antoinette Pinchot Bradlee. Or perhaps it’s easier to move outside of or distance oneself from the Beltway bubble if one is born into it.
It’s like NPR – bottoming out in WGAF territory.
I stumbled across a NPR ad yesterday: “David Brooks discusses his new book (apparently some bullshit on cultural civility) on All Things Considered”. How incestuous; there’s no reason to listen to, or fund NPR. It’s societal value has long since passed. I feel the same way about the WaPo, as well as print and radio media in general.
Things change, institutions come and go. As to Sally Quinn, who gives a shit what she thinks?
Here’s the thing about the ‘rabbit hole’ effect. It works two ways.
I learned this recently when was having an online argument with a deeply entrenched Conservative. She knew every rotten morsel of trash talk about Clinton. She ate, slept and ranted about it without taking a breath. BUT
she didn’t know who Scott Walker was. Really? So it occurred to me that because of her Walker ignorance I’m now ok with the Hillary bashing. Because
now I know that I’m not going to have to defend Hillary. No, now I know that every time I see a Hillary rabbit hole I can bring out the garden hose of information on Rep runners and take the opportunity to educate.
So, it’s not just that we’re accustomed to following the Quinn/Marcus’s down the rabbit hole…they do offer up a certain Enquiring Minds sort of garbage, but that while we’re leaping we forget to bring the garden hose. Time to fill up the holes they dig with counter information without engaging in their drivel.
Good luck with that strategy. Been there and done that. It never had the least impact. Regardless of the importance and high quality of the information I presented, the Clinton obsessives would ignore it and respond with, “Yeah, well what about X?” X being another spurious morsel that pulled out of their Clinton trash bag. Finally told one of them (a not stupid nor uneducated man) that he should stop listening to Rush and his mind rotting spiels. A total guess on my part that he listened to Rush and at the time, I was only dimly aware of what his show was like not having tuned into it then or ever. Didn’t change that man, but he stopped bothering me with his ignorant claptrap.
It was uncovering the rock with my online discussion that she had become so immersed in Clinton trivia that she had literally no idea who Walker was, which led to the answer that actually she didn’t have a clue who was in the Rep pot. Not to mention what their policies were.
They expect answers and a fight when they’re on a Hillary rant so they’ll read my response. It’s force fed education but it works. “Hillary eats chocolate!” “Christie wants to up retirement age for SS”.
It’s much like the Rep when asked a question reply with their own story instead of an answer. You get farther. Just sayin
The basic problem remains. Those who are obsessed with the details (real or imagined) of the personal lives of celebrities, national political figures, and/or a few notorious murderers elevate that junk in their minds to a status of important things to know. For the rest of us, the central characters in what takes hold of their minds are nothing more than the fleeting images that impinge on our eyes and we do our best to ignore.
For example, more USians can name Snooki than can name the VP. And most of them know more about Snooki than her name and the other high profile “reality” show names and faces. They use up mental space on this stuff because it’s easy. Public policy and governance require real knowledge and hard thinking through.
While I have rarely succeeded in persuading anyone with “conservative” biases or ignorance in one-on-one conversations, in a group setting of similar people but without personal relationships and loyalties to the others present, it’s not difficult to facilitate a shift in their knowledge base and thinking. It does require their undivided attention and respect for the speaker. No more than five minutes is required before they begin to question their position. Another five minutes of interaction for them to reject what they previously accepted. With a group of mostly minority, poorly educated, and of average intelligence students, they came to appreciate the harm of corporal punishment, that the flat tax hurts average and low income workers, and that the Amazon deforestation was wrecking the global environment (this was in the mid-1980s).
I agree. Just sayin that rather than following them down that rabbit hole of mind slush and defend Hillary, one more friggin time, it’s instead an opportunity not to drive yourself nuts but instead answer their Hillary charge with a Cruz flipflop, a Cruz lie…especially online where in a comment section there’s a crowd watching.