By Kyle Smith
Tuesday, May 01 2018
When the author of a book on the Hillary Clinton
campaigns admits to breaking down in tears as Clinton’s defeat registered, you
have to read between the lines to guess just how flawed Clinton is.
Unflattering details come up, but because they’re being delivered by a friendly
source, they’re not dwelt upon at great length.
One intriguing aspect of Amy Chozick’s reporting in Chasing Hillary is that Chozick wrote a
story for the New York Times that
never ran that celebrated Clinton’s convivial spirit (or, if you like, her
boozing). After Clinton’s certain victory, the Times was prepared to run a full slate of stories exploring various
aspects of its darling. In contrast, reports Chozick, as Donald Trump’s victory
became increasingly probable on Election Night, an editor in the newsroom was
heard to shout, “We got nothing,” meaning no stories prepared for the
eventuality of Trump’s victory.
Scrambling, the Times
repurposed a story that was intended to describe “white patrons at a dive bar
in a Pennsylvania steel town ‘crying in their beers’ after Trump lost,” in
Chozick’s words. The paper churned it into a tale of Trump’s unexpected
triumph. It was pulled together so hastily that it was sent out into the world
with the wrong bylines: Michael Barbaro and Matt Flegenheimer wrote it, but it
was credited to Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin, according to Chozick.
Chozick’s unpublished color piece on Clinton’s drinking
was meant to illustrate that Clinton was not the starchy, purse-lipped frump of
popular perception but a freewheeling good-time gal. Why couldn’t the story
have run during the campaign rather than after it? That seems obvious. The
factual details were such that they might have made readers question the Times’s spin that Clinton’s drinking
habits reflected well on her. The attentive reader will wonder whether Clinton
has a drinking problem. Chozick says that Clinton would have been “the booziest
president since FDR” and “enjoys a cocktail — or three — more than most
previous presidents.” Chozick isn’t saying that Clinton has three cocktails but
that she has three cocktails more than a man. So: five cocktails, then? Five
cocktails for a woman is generally said to have the same effect as ten
cocktails on a man. Would you want a man who regularly put away ten cocktails
to be president?
Clinton’s career in elected office is obviously over, and
Chozick no longer has any reason to worry about whether she is ingratiating
herself enough with Clinton’s handlers to assure her continued access. Instead,
she abruptly stops the anecdote here and moves on to such matters as what Jon
Bon Jovi was wearing while hanging out on the Clinton campaign plane. It makes
Chozick look protective of Clinton rather than dispassionate.
But it is fair to ask whether the nation came close to
electing a president who regularly drinks to excess, and it is fair to ask of
the nation’s press corps how much information about Clinton’s drinking they
withheld from the public. Given that, according to Chozick, virtually everyone
embedded with the Clinton campaign was a woman who was excited about the
prospect of her winning, it’s also fair to ask of the major media’s assignment
editors whether the reporters they put on the Clinton beat were even close to
being objective observers.
Another potentially intriguing story that Chozick alludes
to but leaves hanging is the question of Chelsea Clinton, who has become an
increasingly vocal public figure in the last year and a half and perhaps has
her eye on political office. (She keeps saying she isn’t running and has no
plans to run but pointedly refuses to rule out running for office in the
future.) Chelsea, we learn, is not the adorable figure portrayed in the slicks.
To be blunt, she is “a real pain in the ass,” according to people working on
her mother’s campaign. But we shouldn’t blame her because she was “raised by
wolves,” one Hillary aide said.
Instead of elaborating, though, Chozick simply implies
that she knows much more than she lets on. Keeping the most interesting stuff
private isn’t what reporting is all about. During Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic
National Convention speech, Chozick thought, “She looked resplendent . . .
[and] made all the complicated feelings I had about her briefly fall away.” It
seems unlikely that a reporter harboring such emotion would be quite so
circumspect if it was the Trump family she was covering — especially if Ivanka
Trump seemed to be mulling a political career.
In keeping with the family tradition, Chelsea is upset
about the specks of reporting about her that did make it into Chozick’s book.
The younger Clinton enjoys telling interviewers that her famously frizzy hair
suddenly went straight in her early twenties, but Chozick (who is also plagued
by curls) implies that she knows this to be false: “I also happen to know her
New York hairdresser — and a keratin job when I saw it.” This sounds like
merely an educated guess on Chozick’s part, not an assertion of fact, but
Chelsea seems to hope she can undermine Chozick’s book as a whole by casting
doubt on this inconsequential aside. Now that her parents’ careers are over,
it’s Chelsea’s turn to try to convince the world she isn’t habitually
misleading. Good luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment