The Forest, The Trees & The Blue Dress
In a left-of-center version of not seeing the forest for the trees, some Hillary Clinton supporters are outraged, just outraged that ABC News had the temerity to note the First Lady appears to have been in the White House on the day that her sex-addicted husband left his calling card on the blue dress of a young and naïve intern.
While the item won’t win any Good Housekeeping awards, it is an appropriate historic footnote that neither the Clintons nor their supporters can wish away.
Furthermore, their frothing is a silly distraction from the main event.
Just as many right-of-center bloggers focused on Barack Obama’s refusal to disavow the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and not his larger message the other day, these outraged Hillary supporters are choosing to not focus on Mrs. Clinton’s latest stumble: Her claims that her years as First Lady are “a key element” of her 35 years of experience are not borne out by the thousands of pages of records released yesterday by the National Archive in response to a lawsuit.
In fact, the records show just what you would expect: The First Lady was only tangentially involved in domestic policy making, not involved at all in foreign policy making and wasn’t even in Washington when many of the key events of the Clinton era transpired.
12 Responses to “The Forest, The Trees & The Blue Dress”
What you're saying has been obvious since it was revealed that Hillary Clinton didn't have a security clearance during her husband's presidency. A little resume padding is to be expected, even benign. But Sen. Clinton needs to run on the resume she has not on the one she wishes she had and her supporters need to evaluate her candidacy on the same terms.
Decision making is a process. It's not just sitting in the room when the choice of yes or no is finally made.
And what difference does it make where Mrs Clinton was located when Mr Clinton cheated on her? Seriously, why should this bit of color change anyone's opinion of Hillary Clinton. As a former member of the MSM, Shaun, you ought to be able to explain why it's, as you say, “appropriate”. Just because it helps to sell advertising space?
Mr. Sorwell:
Answering the question of where Mrs. Clinton was when the blue dress incident occurred is relevant in an historic context just as where Eleanor Roosevelt was when FDR messed around with Lucy Mercer.
You can't airbrush history to suit your tastes, qualms and proclivities. I took pains to note that it is disingenuous to focus on the Day of the Blue Dress because it misses a larger point: Mrs. Clinton's claims regarding her “experience” as First Lady are bunk, but it is nevertheless relevant.
Whoa, hold on a second there…
I don't think anybody is denying that the document dump is historic, nor the fact that she was in the White House on that day, but for the FIRST story out of ABC to trumpet the dress, give the day a name (!) and actually show the thing demonstrates not only extremely poor journalistic taste, but also betrays a particularly sensationalist myopia.
Now, I could actually understand if these records were released while she was a Senator and ABC focused on the dress. But given that Hillary is running for President. the story should have focused on the fact that there are redacted portions of her schedule and, as Dave points out, the fact that she didn't have security clearance. Those are most pertinent to the job she's applying for, not the fact that she was in the White House on that fateful day.
Sorry Shaun, but I'm sure most of us see both the forest and the trees on this one, but we're simply disgusted that ABC teepee'd the entrance to the forest with blue dresses.
Clinton's released records were sanitized. She was co-President. As I told someone else yesterday, “I want Penny-Kasich dead in three days” was not said by her husband, but by her. And it was she who led the health care task force, et cetera.
Gee DLS, been watching too many bad melodramas, it seems.
DLS, perhaps she was co-president in her mind…
The difference between her and her husband is that her husband, not she, was elected to fill the position.
“too many bad melodramas”
It really happened, as did the response largely to her, not him (the 1994 elections).
What Justin Gardner said!
Shaun:
The Irish Prime Minister begs to differ with you, at least re: her role in the Irish peace process.
http://themoderatevoice.com/places/europe/unite…
And I personally am ENTIRELY OFFENDED by ABC News' publication of the blue dress story—-speaking as a sister woman as well as a Hillary supporter.
It's made me get emotional, and I don't like getting emotional…..