Patterico's Pontifications


Sometimes a Half-Hearted Apology is Enough

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 4:02 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Following up on WLS’s post about David “Pimped Out” Shuster of MSNBC, Hillary Clinton has written the network that:

“… no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.”

That’s interesting because, after the Lewinsky affair, Hillary apparently thought her husband’s half-hearted apologies were good enough.


23 Responses to “Sometimes a Half-Hearted Apology is Enough”

  1. Say what you want about the ambitious, amoral, self-seeking shitkickers, they did protect Chelsea all along the way. As much as any parent would and more than most.

    nk (1e0a58)

  2. Hillary apparently thought her husband’s half-hearted apologies were good enough.

    Based on what?

    What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds,” Clinton said. “I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends and my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame …” “Mere words cannot fully express the profound remorse I feel for what our country is going through, and for what members of both parties in Congress are now forced to deal with.

    “These past months have been a tortuous process of coming to terms with what I did. I understand that accountability demands consequences, and I’m prepared to accept them.”

    I’m not sure that qualifies as “half-hearted” – unless you’re saying Clinton was more defiant than remorseful out of camera range. Few would quarrel with that.

    steve (e2dc0b)

  3. Steve,

    I called Bill Clinton’s apologies half-hearted because I think they were. If you click on the “half-hearted apologies” link, you’ll see that even CNN described his eight attempts to apologize as “evolving” apologies that represented a “long road to contrition.”

    By the way, your quote came from his seventh attempt.

    DRJ (517d26)

  4. The way the Clintons have treated their daughter is quite instructive. They have demanded (and received) far better treatment for her from the press than any other presidential children, while also exploiting her for political gain whenever necessary.

    This incident is no different.

    gahrie (56a0a8)

  5. Shuster is a jerk but it is interesting to see him hoist on that particular petard after his many artless and crude comments about others.

    Clinton is a study in tragedy, at least if you accept farce as a form of tragedy. All he had to do wasconfess and ask forgiveness when this first came out. Nixon dd not know about the Watergate burglary until after it happened. I see no one apologizing for Nixon.

    By the way, I am reading Conrad Black’s life of Nixon and it is as excellent as his life of Roosevelt.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  6. Is she suggesting . . . . I can have sex with a presidential candidate? Without consequence? X the thoughts on McCain and Obama.

    Matthew Johnson (cde7d8)

  7. If “no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient,” does that mean that the lovely Mrs Clinton is demanding that he be fired?

    Dana (556f76)

  8. DRJ wrote:

    I called Bill Clinton’s apologies half-hearted because I think they were. If you click on the “half-hearted apologies” link, you’ll see that even CNN described his eight attempts to apologize as “evolving” apologies that represented a “long road to contrition.”

    That’s because Mr Clinton wasn’t really sorry that he played around with Miss Lewinsky; he was just sorry that he got caught and that there were consequences. Bill Clinton never did think that he was mortal enough to have to bear personal consequences.

    Dana (556f76)

  9. Of course, the thing that interests me is how HRC went on and on about how a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” was “lying” about her husband.

    I notice that HRC didn’t go on record apologizing for those claims, incidentally.

    To be sure, some folks on the Right were gunning for WJC. Like folks on the Left don’t gun for Republicans? The part that has always bothered me was the context that Republicans were making things up about WJC’s continual zipper problems.

    Because they weren’t.

    I’m pretty sure HRC knew all about WJC’s zipper problem over many, many years. I’m also sure that it fuels her current sense of resentment supercharged entitlement: look at how much she had to put up with!

    Heck of a rationale to be President, or to vote for someone….

    If she didn’t know about her husband’s cigar antics, she isn’t very smart. If she did, and didn’t care because of the political aspects, it makes her as cold blooded as any reptile.

    I think she should have divorced the giant gonad instantly after the blue dress revelation. Would she have been elected Senator in NY state a couple of years later? I think so. And it would have made her seem more like a person with conviction (so to speak, given the Clintons).

    Scandals too much of a burden? That ship sailed decades ago.

    My opinion only, of course.

    Eric Blair (d57d58)

  10. Her thoughts probably run to evisceration.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  11. One Paula Jones does not equal one Chelsea Clinton. Simple equation when it comes to democratic compassion.

    Vermont Neighbor (c6313b)

  12. Vermont neighbor….explain that….please….

    reff (99666d)

  13. Well, the shredding of these previous women. I know a mother protects her kid, but send Chelsea out to delegate with the supers and you’re likely to see snarky media response. I’m glad Hillary supported her daughter. She’s now gone too far (imo) by saying the apology wasn’t enough. And if Monica didn’t have the dress stored in the closet, she would have been laughed off as a fraud. Actually, the party still thinks of Lewinsky as the problem.

    Vermont Neighbor (c6313b)

  14. So, Hillary, what’s worse, a reporter commenting that you were “pimping out” your daughter, or you calling Paula Jones “trailer trash” after your husband, the then governor of Arkansas sexually assaulted her?

    j.pickens (53ee7a)

  15. I should add, that Ms. Jones was about the same age as Chelsea is now when the assault occurred.

    j.pickens (53ee7a)

  16. VT neighbor…thanks….I can see your point….

    I also think that Hillary is just doing something to distract the public, to gain favor, or to curry sympathy….anything to get people to feel sorry for her…

    In other words, the wounded female, needing support…women will flock to her again…the “strong mother” trying to protect her child…

    God, help us…are Democratics that simple….?

    reff (99666d)

  17. (reff:) The Clintons do have a trademark habit of confuse and distract. You could be right regarding the sympathy angle. I thought that even for Hillary she might be starting to crack. It just doesn’t make her look good to whip the media again on the same issue. And yes, a real shame that she called Paula trailer trash. She could’ve eased out of that differently but chose not to. I wonder what percentage of Obama’s success is his sunny simple-speak, versus payback to the Clints.

    Vermont Neighbor (c6313b)

  18. Hillary is grandstanding releasing the letter. She surely must have said the same things during the conversation with Steve Capus. David Shuster is guilty of shooting from the hip, not deliberately gunning for Chelsea.

    Who said Hillary thought her “husband’s half-hearted apologies were good enough” for her?

    steve (4b80ed)

  19. Me. Specifically, I said “Hillary apparently thought her husband’s half-hearted apologies were good enough.”

    Steve – Was that question directed to me or was that a rhetorical question?

    DRJ (517d26)

  20. This is just the Clintons preconditioning the media again. If the 2/26 debate goes ahead on MSNBC, expect complete softball questions to be directed at Hillary.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  21. Hillary is avoiding a Dukakis moment: “My wife raped and killed? I’d be kind of ticked off.”

    She knows everybody hates the media, especially MSNBC.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  22. Even when trying to appear as a mama bear protecting her cub, it comes off as forced and an opportunity to reshape her media image. Its always mind-boggling ow the Clintons have elevated shape-shifting to an art form.

    If she truly cared about Chelsea being an object of media slimeand comment, she would have strongly discouraged her daughter and even asked her outright to not campaign for her, and to remain in the background.

    Dana (02941a)

  23. “God, help us…are Democratics that simple….?”

    Comment by reff — 2/9/2008 @ 7:11 pm

    Sadly, yes.

    If they weren’t that simple, they would be able to understand that actions have consequences. I.E. Increasing corporate taxes increases the cost of goods and services. Or forcing hospitals to care for people who will not pay causes increased health care costs or the closing of medical facilities.

    Remember, it’s all about feelings. Logic be damned.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1971 secs.