For chronic Clinton-haters, it was a glorious weekend. The object of their joy? A book by For chronic Clinton-haters, it was a glorious weekend. The object of their joy? A book by National Enquirer writer Jerry Oppenheimer, published by conservative sugar-daddy Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins press, containing allegations that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called someone a "fucking Jew bastard" in a moment of anger.
When you consider that the person allegedly slandered -- then-Bill Clinton campaign manager Paul Fray -- is actually a Baptist, the story starts to seem rather Area 51-ish. And that's before you read these lines from Fray's three year old apology letter to Hillary, released by her campaign: "At one point in my life, I would say things without thinking, without factual foundation, and without rhyme or remedy until it furthered my own agenda. I was wrong, and I have wronged you."
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote of Hillary's alleged anti-Semitic remark, "There's no way to prove a negative. But if you buy this one, I've got some information on the murder of Vince Foster by the Israeli Secret Service that you'll really enjoy."
Though the Hillary slur story comes straight out of right field, doubts about its veracity -- not to mention its relevance to the Clinton-Lazio New York Senate race -- have done little to stave off a media feeding frenzy. Recollections of Jesse Jackson's 1984 "Hymietown" remark about New York have abounded among the punditry, as have familiar inventories of all those anti-Clinton grotesques from primordial Arkansas. But there are subtle gradations in the conservative hysteria, beginning with the most extreme:
Off with Her Head. "This could be the pivotal issue in [Hillary's] Senate race," writes Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden. But even Pruden cannot match this headline from the extraterrestrial NewsMax.com: "Time For Slur-Monger Hillary to Withdraw from Senate Race." There can be "absolutely no doubt," writes an unidentified individual for the website, "that Hillary Clinton engaged in the most vile and vulgar anti-Semitic invective during a 1974 argument with campaign aides -- as well as on other occasions." Hang on, NewsMax is not finished: "Anyone in the media who pretends she can do otherwise [than resign from the Senate race] has forfeited his or her credentials as a responsible journalist."
We forfeit.
But the guillotine attendants contain a sub-group:
Those in Need of Fact Checkers. We all know the Washington Times tends to be a rather puritanical newspaper. But that's no excuse for the aptly-named Pruden to omit the expletive, writing that Hillary allegedly said, "you Jew bastard." Bleep it out, or something, but don't just leave it out. After all, it's at least as relevant as anything else in this story.
Meanwhile, there are . . .
The Second Generation Clinton-Haters. Jonah Goldberg, editor of the National Review Online and son of Linda Tripp's book agent Lucianne Goldberg, must have made mommy proud with his "rapid response" on Hillary's alleged slur. After conceding that it's at least open to doubt whether Hillary actually said the words, he ends up directly accusing her:
If Hillary Clinton said "you f***king [sic] Jew bastard," I don't think it confirms Hillary's anti-Semitism. Rather it confirms what I always believed: She is a nasty piece of work who will say anything if it will achieve her aims. A year ago, she said Palestine should be a state, because she was talking to the Palestinians. These days she says Jews are the greatest thing since sliced Matzos, because she needs Jews. And, 26 years ago she said "you f***ing Jew bastard" because she wanted to hurt someone's feelings.
Goldberg's deft rhetorical maneuver is matched, however, by another second-generation right-winger: the New York Post's John Podhoretz, son of conservative guru Norman Podhoretz. In a non-judgmental column entitled "The Web of Lies Unravels," Podhoretz first admits Hillary might be telling the truth, but uses this as an excuse to devote a column to attacking her. Why? "Her own history of lies," of course.
Then there are the co-generational bashers:
The Logicians. Some Hillary-haters showed remarkably complex reasoning powers, as in this passage by Rush's brother, conservative columnist David Limbaugh:
Did you know that Fray, the target of Hillary's alleged slur, is not Jewish? Why would Hillary hurl an anti-Semitic epithet against a gentile? It makes no sense. Au contraire. You must understand that Fray's paternal grandmother was Jewish, and Bill and Hillary knew of his heritage. Think about it. Why in the world would a person not Jewish concoct a bizarre story that someone called him a "f---ing Jew bastard"? Is it likely that people would believe that? The fact that Fray is alleging such an improbable event is what makes it believable. It's also what makes it quite disturbing. If Hillary truly did say it, knowing that Fray was only fractionally Jewish, does that not reveal a deep-seated antipathy toward Jewish people? Only the most prejudiced of people would obsess on whether someone came from a partially ethnic background.
But by far the most prominent strategy among right-wingers is that already exhibited by Goldberg and Podhoretz:
Admit Reasonable Doubt, Then Bash Hillary Anyway. Another National Review Online writer, Robert A. George (who also happens to write for the editorial page of the New York Post, which happens to be a Murdoch paper), claims he is "reserving judgment" about the supposed slur, but then goes on to explain how "the Clinton reaction . . . is remarkably reminiscent of various scandals past." This as a segue into yet another muckraking, anti-Clinton column. This strategy was also taken by Hillary's Senate rival, Rick Lazio, who commented of the allegations: "I don't know who to believe. I don't think New Yorkers know who to believe, and therein lies a good deal of the problem."
But don't forget . . .
The Insult Reclamation Project. CNN Newsstand aired the comments of one Joseph Frager, of the Jerusalem Reclamation Project: "We, the Jewish people, always remember -- for thousands of years, mind you -- what people have said about us, and we will not forget what Hillary Clinton said about us 26 years ago."
But actually, not all conservatives want to make a huge to-do over the alleged slur.
Those Who've Taken a Valium include self-described practicing Jew and Republican Dennis Prager, who defended Hillary in the Wall Street Journal op-ed section. Prager says he actually believes the first lady uttered the slur, but writes, "I am repulsed by the loose talk about Mrs. Clinton's long-ago utterance. If that renders her an anti-Semite, then virtually every Gentile is anti-Semitic and almost every Jew is an anti-Gentile bigot." That's because, says Prager, we ought to judge people by a bit more than something they may have said . . . what was it? Twenty-six years ago?
Also falling into this camp, believe it or not, is former Hillary nemesis Rudy Giuliani. Of the alleged slur, he commented: "It has to do with people who maybe have some kind of anger at the president and Mrs. Clinton. I understand that really well. Lots of people are angry at me. I should know -- I know about all the false, exaggerated and misused statements in books, and I sympathize with them over it."Amen.
