Why the Times is so upset at Hillary’s “meanness”

The editors of the New York Times’ have virtually withdrawn their previous endorsement of Mrs. Clinton and are attacking her over her “mean” campaign. Lisa Schiffren has an interesting analysis of the editorial:

… Equally fascinating is the implicit assumption that when a candidate, in this case Hillary, shows real strength and determination not to be crushed—on fairly substantive grounds (i.e. she can win the big states needed in the general)—they regard that very strength and desire to triumph as a sign of evil. This is direct analogue to their views about American strength vis-a-vis the enemy of the era; or Israel’s strong determination and actions taken not to be destroyed by real enemies. This, in fact, is the signature element of modern liberalism that makes so many of us regard it, and its adherents as unfit for governance: Winning, showing strength, wanting to survive against attack is a sign of something evil. Now that Hillary has had these arguments turned on her, perhaps she will learn a thing or two.

Finally—by what reckoning has this primary fight been so nasty? So dirty? So mean? We have all seen much worse. If anything, until this past month the questions and the charges have been much too dainty. Barack Obama is a stranger to most of the electorate. It is just fine to question any and all of his associations and political views. Failure to do so is malfeasance…

I agree that Hillary has shown laudable strength and determination in going after Obama’s weaknesses and maintaining her will to win even as the entire Democratic establishment has been telling her to quit; and I also agree that the Times regards strength and determination in the face of the odds as evil. Let’s not forget, however, that Hillary is a leftist who wants to turn us into an unfree, EU-style, feminized country. There will be no room for the type of strength Schiffren admires in Hillary’s America.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Send