Due to draconian time constraints and almost unlimited pique, much of
my recent venting has been confined to letters to the editor. I get
angry or amused, toss 300 words in the cause’s direction and wash my
hands of the whole ball of wax. But when anger, amusement and a really
cool turn of phrase collide … well, read on.

I began with a bemused reply to John Derbyshire’s July 19 column for
National Review Online,

“Madam, You Are a


    I really don’t want to pick your editorial decisions to death but a curious thing happened at the beginning of John Derbyshire’s recent column on what I have dubbed “Jewbastardgate.”

    Derbyshire wrote: “It is alleged, with evidence from (at the moment of writing) three witnesses, that following the failure of Bill Clinton’s congressional campaign in 1974, Clinton’s lady swore at his campaign manager, calling him ‘an (expletive) Jew bastard.'”

    Now forget for a moment that the rest of NROnline has pretty much unanimously edited the remark thusly, “f—ing Jew bastard” (as in, “According to Mr. Oppenheimer’s book, she called him a ‘f###ing Jew bastard.'”)

    What does interest me is the article before “(expletive)” and the placing of the quotation. She called him “an f—ing Jew bastard”? It doesn’t make sense. If she uttered the insult in question, it likely came out, “You f—ing Jew bastard” or, to turn the knife a little harder, “You little f—ing Jew bastard.” I would bet money that she did not call him “an f—ing Jew bastard” or even “a f—ing Jew bastard” to his face.

    Further, even if we shift the quotation mark to the right, “an” just doesn’t work. It falls tinnily off the ear. Even when speaking to a non-Hebraic third party, I would not be caught dead calling someone “an f—ing Jew bastard” (if I was so moved, I would have to use “a,” or hold my tongue) and, though Hillary reminds me a bit too much of a hayseed at heart, I doubt she’d ever make that mistake.”

It was a good laugh for myself and the friends I CC’d it to. And there the matter rested. Almost.

If the charges leveled by Jerry Oppenheimer in his soon-to-be bestseller, “The State of a Union” vis-à-vis the “f—ing Jew bastard” insult are true, it would only have further confirmed what many already know about Hillary: She’s vulgar, aggressive, often heartless and tramples on anybody she crosses paths with. This is news?

Plus, as one who thought everybody should have given Marge Schott, John Rocker, Jesse Jackson, Jorge Haider and Bob Jones University a break, I judged myself to be in no position to lob live grenades through my translucent roof. Though I’d never in a million years be dumb enough to vote for the woman, I was about to cut her some slack on this particular issue.

Then the vast left-wing conspiracy swung into gear. Because this is a column and not a book, we’ll just examine all the news that’s fit to print.

The New York Times editorialist exculpated her on the grounds that she was part of the team that brought down President Nixon (hate Tricky Dick = not an anti-Semite. Huh?). The Times also allowed Gail Collins to hold forth in the truly nitwit manner most of us have come to expect (“… 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.” Oh, good one Gail! Hope you tipped the coffee girl for thinking of that one.) That in itself was excruciating, but then they let David Brock loose on the subject.

Brock, thumbsucking former “right-wing muckraker,” of course, related his own “painful” experience with his book, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.” The source of said pain? It bombed. Why? Brock trots out, for the 51st time, the rationale that it didn’t meet expectations in the red-meat department, even going so far as to say that his book, “was widely anticipated on the political right as the October surprise that would swing the 1996 election to the Republicans.” On a scale of one to 10, how’s that for self-important pomposity?

Oh, but it gets better.

Having failed to deliver Hillary “in leg irons,” Brock not only categorically writes off the possibility that it could be done, he attempts to shame any reporters out of thinking about it. First he alleges that any new anti-Clintonian material that sounds sensational should be immediately suspect, on financial grounds. Then he takes an unwarranted shot at Gary Aldrich. Finally, he closes with this little number:

“For eight years, Hillary Clinton has been portrayed … as a bleeding-heart liberal. Now, she’s suddenly a bigot. I don’t buy it. And I hope we’ve read the last book bashing the Clintons.”

A few questions spring to mind here:

  • Doesn’t Brock know the difference between a liberal and a leftist? (Hint: it has something to do with ambition and a lack of scruples.)

  • In order for someone to be “a bleeding-heart” anything, doesn’t one have to evince the slightest evidence of a pulse?

  • If our former muck-raking wonderboy was at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, would he be in favor of tacking the following disclaimer to the First Amendment, “Unless, you know, it’s really offensive speech”?

I want to be moved with compassion for Mrs. Clinton — I really do — but the woman really did have it coming.

Her predicament is, in fact, similar to that of her husband in his recent impeachment problems. He was guilty of essentially venial (if vulgar) offenses and was sued under our very ill thought-out sexual harassment laws. His perjury under said laws was picked up by a prosecutor whose position probably shouldn’t have existed in the first place and what should have been an embarrassing flap ended in the Mark of Jackson being applied to his history books.

All of which would have been an injustice had Bill Clinton not renewed the Independent Counsel Act, expanded sexual harassment laws, lied to the American people and absolutely refused to accept any responsibility for his actions or evince the slightest bit of genuine remorse. So it is with Hillary.

She remained silent while Mrs. Arafat accused Jews of gassing Palestinians, met with racial healer Rev. Sharpton, demurred when her husband pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists and came out in favor of a completely autonomous Palestinian state before it was prudent for someone in her position to consider doing so. A political strategist could in fact make the plausible case that she was attempting to sew up the radical/anti-Semitic vote before August.

Problem: Jews make up 12 percent of the electorate in New York.

Then there’s also the divide-and-conquer angle: Her husband’s administration — with her blessing, I assume — has pursued a strategy of balkanization and pillage. From continuing affirmative action to goosing the census statistics to appointing radical minority judges and then charging racism when the Senate demurs, no administration in recent history has sought as fervently to pick the scab off our racial differences in a shameful search for votes.

A more seasoned commentator might at this point call it a day and say that, whether or not she said what might well scuttle her chances for a seat in the U.S. Senate, it’s poetic justice. Not this one.

I think she said it. Her denials have been fierce and the response too coordinated. It very much looks like the typical Clinton overreaction when they know they have something to hide. To update the Bard, the lady’s campaign doth protest too much.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.