The responses of Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton to the Hevesi chauffeur fiasco yesterday provided some interesting contrasts.
Spitzer, after some early equivocating, said he was going to reconsider and re-evaluate -- talk to Hevesi, listen to the debate, try to figure out whether Hevesi was trying to skirt the law or was just dumb and sloppy. That's the kind of legalistic approach you'd expect from a prosecutor. We'll find in the coming days -- based on what he does, how close to the election he does it, how he justifies it, and how vociferous he is -- whether he's really interested in raising Albany's ethical norms, or wants to pretend he's acting on principle while he works to protect his party's hold on the Comptroller's office.
Hillary, on the other hand, didn't even pretend that she was engaged in some merit-based evaluation of Hevesi's conduct, or that she cared. For her, it was all a question of loyalty. She called Hevesi a "friend" who had made a mistake. Asked if she'd share a stage with him, she said, "You know, I don't desert my friends."
Two things kick in here. First, Hillary is a fairly attuned politician, so the question isn't really about Hevesi, or the facts, or what he did to the taxpayers --every question is ultimately about her. When asked if she'd share a stage, she doesn't talk about what he did -- criticizing it or defending it -- but herself: "I don't desert my friends." It's a response designed to tell us that Hillary is a loyal person, deserving of respect. It's kind of like Bush and Rumsfeld -- the issue for the president is his image as a loyal guy, not the chaos created by Rumsfeld's performance in Iraq.
Second, unlike Spitzer, she's spent her life as, more often than not, a target -- and never a prosecutor. Her husband had an affair with an intern, lied to a federal judge under oath about it -- and through it all, Bill and Hillary convinced the entire Democratic party to suspend its values and stand with them. They doled out pardons to friendly felons, donors, and Hillary vote-deliverers -- and again, convinced millions to overlook their mendacity.
Having relied on the forbearance of others in the name of loyalty, it's her natural response. Why on earth would you get rid of A Member of the Leadership Class Like Me and Bill just because they did something wrong? Principles?
Comments (1)
The responses of Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton to the Hevesi chauffeur fiasco yesterday provided some interesting contrasts.
Spitzer, after some early equivocating,(Riley that is your warped take on it) said he was going to reconsider and re-evaluate -- talk to Hevesi, listen to the debate, try to figure out whether Hevesi was trying to skirt the law or was just dumb and sloppy. That's the kind of legalistic approach you'd expect from a prosecutor(Hello that is what Ellliot has been..does Riley get out much). We'll find in the coming days -- based on what he does, how close to the election he does it, how he justifies it, and how vociferous he is -- whether he's really interested in raising Albany's ethical norms, or wants to pretend he's acting on principle while he works to protect his party's hold on the Comptroller's office.(you mean like Faso's pretend Cases that Elliot has won for the new york state taxpayers???)
Hillary, on the other hand, didn't even pretend that she was engaged in some merit-based evaluation of Hevesi's conduct, or that she cared. For her, it was all a question of loyalty. She called Hevesi a "friend" who had made a mistake. Asked if she'd share a stage with him, she said, "You know, I don't desert my friends."(Evidently Riley doesn't have too many friends
Two things kick in here. First, Hillary is a fairly attuned politician, so the question isn't really about Hevesi, or the facts, or what he did to the taxpayers -- it's about her. When asked if she'd share a stage, she doesn't talk about what he did -- criticizing it or defending it -- but herself: "I don't desert my friends." It's a response that tells us that Hillary is a loyal person, deserving of respect. It's kind of like Bush and Rumsfeld -- the issue for the president is his image as a loyal guy, not the chaos created by Rumsfeld's performance.
Second, unlike Spitzer(Riley must not read newsday much..Elliot has been the target of Suozzi and all his north shore business friends), she's spent her life as, more often than not, a target -- and never a prosecutor. Her husband had an affair with an intern, lied to a federal judge under oath about it -- and through it all, Bill and Hillary convinced the entire Democratic party to stand with them. They doled out pardons to friendly felons, donors, and Hillary vote-deliverers -- and again, convinced millions to overlook their mendacity.
Having relied on the forbearance of others in the name of loyalty, it's her natural response. Why on earth would you get rid of A Member of the Leadership Class Like Me and Bill just because they did something wrong? Principles?