Author: Andrew Sullivan

“These outrageous pardons seem to confirm everything Clinton-haters said about them (well, maybe not the charges that they murdered small children, or poor Vince Foster). They appear to be the corrupt, self-dealing mandarins of their opponents’ most virulent imaginings.” – Salon.com.
“I can’t say these are illegitimate questions being brought up, because they are legitimate.” – James Carville.

TIPPING POINT: Maybe it’s being mentioned in the Washington Post and Rush Limbaugh this week, but yesterday, we had over 8,000 daily unique visitors – a record. We also got a recent mention on “Politically Incorrect.” Good timing to launch the tipping jar. A button will magically appear here on Monday, giving you three options for throwing a small donation at the site to keep it going – or even expand. More details and a pitch on Monday.

“Bob, having Leah Rabin call is not a bad idea. The problem is how do we contact her? She died last November.” – an email from the director general of the Marc Rich Foundation to a Rich lawyer in New York, dreaming up new angles to get a pardon for their wealthy fugitive friend. Leon Wieseltier has more gems from Jack Quinn’s email trail in the new New Republic.

Am I the only journalist to be troubled by Rolling Stone owner Jann Wenner’s complete conflation of journalism and lobbying in some of the pardon cases? The New York Post reports that “Clinton ended up commuting the sentences of 17 drug offenders supported by FAMM [Families Against Mandatory Minimums], which claims mandatory sentencing laws have left thousands of first-time, nonviolent drug violators languishing for years behind bars. Wenner lobbied Clinton for 14 of them. Wenner, who has donated over $30,000 to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, raised the issue with Clinton during a Rolling Stone interview in the White House family quarters in October. He later faxed Clinton and top aide Bruce Lindsey details of the cases along with a personal letter of support.” (My emphasis.) I guess we’re inured to the fact now that someone who runs a magazine like Rolling Stone has gone from counter-cultural rebel to high-level user of presidential access. And we’re no longer shocked to find that Wenner’s indebtedness to Clinton translates into fellatial coverage of the president in the pages of Rolling Stone. And this toadying to a man who expanded the drug war to new and invidious heights! But to use an actual interview to lobby for the cause of a friend seems to me a new low in principled journalism in which there is some distinction between a reporter/interviewer and political supplicant. I’m a big believer in the cause that Wenner was trying to advance. Our drug laws are way too rigid and harsh. But you shouldn’t have to trash any ounce of journalistic integrity to promote a worthwhile cause.

Some interesting developments. First, there’s a strong and immediate response to the idea that the AIDS office would be closed. Bush himself said that AIDS was a priority for his administration. We’ll see, of course. Then the Bush administration continues the Clinton policy of not pursuing sanctions against some Third World countries manufacturing generic anti-HIV meds to combat a public health emergency. To be honest, I haven’t come to a real conclusion as to what is the best compromise between keeping the financial incentives for AIDS research, while dealing with what is clearly an immediate and growing global AIDS crisis. But the Clinton-Bush compromise doesn’t seem to me to be obviously misguided – and their motives are clearly compassionate. Finally, John Ashcroft met yesterday with Log Cabin Republicans. I have to say I find this to be moving news. I’m not going to roll over and love the new AG. How could I? But his willingness to meet with LCR was welcome, constructive and good. Those left-wing critics who argued that any gay support for Bush was tantamount to Jewish support for the Nazis have so far been proven, as usual, wrong. A dialogue has begun. We need to keep it going.

I’m still waiting for the first black leader to say what should be said about the Carlos Vignali pardon. Why is Vignali free while dozens of mainly black, poor underlings in his crack-selling operation are not? Remember the canard that the FBI was secretly selling crack to inner-city black youngsters – and the African-American outrage this prompted? (The outrage was justified if the story had been true. Pity it wasn’t.) Well, now we have a pardon for someone convicted of peddling millions of dollars worth of crack into such ghettoes – thanks, in part, to the influence of Bill Clinton’s brother-in-law. Put it another way: the “first black president” singled out a non-black for a pardon, leaving dozens of black convicts in jail, and all for peddling crack to mainly black inner-city youngsters. Take it away, Jesse! Oh never mind.

A devoted reader makes the simple case that Clinton does what he does because he is a sociopath. Here’s the official American Psychiatric Association definition. Sound familiar?
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as
indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning
others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights
or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
Diagnostic Criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, 1994, pp. 645-650.

Just back from a dinner party at Christopher Hitchens’s – a refreshingly eclectic crowd, from David Frum to Lewis Lapham. For some unaccountable reason, Mrs. Graham didn’t invite any of us to her inaugural Georgetown dinner party for W. I’m crushed. Anyway, much glee from all sides on Rodhamscam. Hitch and I barely agree on most things, but we’re at one on Clinton. “The question to ask,” he growled mischievously by the fireplace, “is are the Clintons better off than they were eight years ago?” He told me about the 5000 square foot penthouse to be attached to Clinton’s presidential library, a detail that previous presidents had somehow overlooked in theirs’. Cocktail chatter revolved around exactly why Clinton did what he did. Bear with me. I know the obvious answer is: he’s Clinton! These are the kinds of things he does. And you’d be right. But what intrigues me is the following question: Why, when he is intent on burnishing his record, did he decide to go out in a blaze of sleaze? He must have known that these pardons would stink – that’s why they were diverted from the usual channels and sprung upon us mere hours before his term expired. I don’t buy Paul Begala’s theory that Clinton was simply tired and screwed up. So why take this simply enormous hit? I have a couple of theories, but would welcome any others you might have. The first is simple enough: he wants the money. What for? Well, maybe he just wants it. If Marc Rich, in five years’ time, invites Clinton to Switzerland to give a speech for $5 million, do you think Slick Willie would say no? It pays to pardon the rich and connected. Some would object that Clinton has never really been personally rapacious before – he’s interested in power, not money, etc etc. But now that he’s been a two-term president of the United States, don’t you think he’s smart enough to have figured out that in the power-game, he’s had it all? Why not cash in finally? And while he’s at it, why not also demonstrate his utter contempt for the media, his fellow Democrats, the pathetic toadies who bought his b.s. for so long, and the rest of the VRWC who can do nothing but splutter at the sheer brazenness of it all?

THE HILLARY ANGLE: Alternatively, another theory holds that all of this end-game sleaze is designed to butter up future contributors for his wife, Hillary. The game continues – but under a different hat. So the risks of the last-minute pardons were worth it for future campaign gold for HRC. I’m afraid I don’t buy it. Clinton will have plenty of opportunity to raise money for Hillary in the future, and by January 20, he had put his support behind Terry McAuliffe to run the Democrats anyway. Besides, Clinton’s not a fool. He must have known that the kind of pardons he granted would inevitably wound Hillary – perhaps fatally for her presidential ambitions. So here’s a thought: do you think this could be deliberate? Was this last-minute sleaze actually a clever device to sabotage his goody-goody wife for good and all? What better way than to devise a particular pardon-scandal that would deeply implicate Hillary’s own brother! That way, Bill gets his own back on Hillary’s attempt to escape his lure and taint, and reminds her how she got where she is. He also gets to vent his anger at all the humiliation his marital problems have brought upon him. I realize I’m in complete pop-psycho land here, but, after all we’ve gone through, is this scenario completely implausible? Personally, I think it’s a combination of all of the above, what my shrink calls “multi-determined.” I think Clinton did it because he could; I think he likes rewarding people who might subsequently reward him; I think he may quietly be glad Hillary is wounded just as he is deep-down thrilled that Gore didn’t win. And through all of this, Clinton gets to be in the limelight he still craves, and will do almost anything to get. Deeply, deeply pathetic, but possibly true.

Fresh from Hardball when the news broke. I’d say a few things. First, this matters more than the Rich pardon because it directly links Hillary to the sleaze. Rodham is her brother. His $200K is directly due to his familial relationship. Even if Hillary knew nothing about her brother’s shenanigans (which I doubt), nothing could more clearly taint her than her own flesh and blood. And she’s the only Clinton with a real political career left. She thought she could wrest free and start over, but she can’t. At long last, the bad karma is hurting the only person so far to survive the Clinton curse. Second, the poorly but ever-so-carefully written press release from the ex-prez concedes nothing. Read it carefully, as you have to read everything out of Clinton’s mouth or pen. Here it is in full: “Yesterday I became aware of press inquires that Hugh Rodham received a contingency fee in connection with a pardon application for Glenn Braswell and a fee for work on Carlos Vignali’s commutation application. Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments. We are deeply disturbed by these reports and have insisted that Hugh return any moneys received.” Here’s what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that yesterday was the first time he found out about Rodham’s lobbying. He merely says that ‘yesterday, I became aware of press inquiries” about Rodham’s lobbying. Nor does Clinton say he was ever completely ignorant of Rodham’s lobbying for the crack cocaine mogul and herbal entrepreneur – or of Rodham’s being reimbursed for his work. He only denies knowledge of “such payments” – meaning the $200K success fee for Vignali and the contingency fee for Braswell. It’s perfectly possible that Clinton knew of Rodham’s work, granted the pardons as a favor, and is only embarrassed by the crass lump-sum payment from an overseas bank account that finally came to light. Prediction: Bruce Lindsey will be the one to take the fall on this. The National Enquirer is clearly becoming one of the best investigative sources in the country. And Hillary is now fighting for her political life.

I just read the transcript of Lynne Cheney’s amazing CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. What to say? I find her as mystifying and intriguing as Eminem. As you can see below (“The Eminem Saga”), I don’t share her horror of Eminem – making me less sensitive to homophobia than she is! I guess I’m more of a let-it-all-hang-out kind of guy. But my difference with her on this doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate her inclusion of homophobia in her criticism of Eminem. If you take her view that the culture should be more effectively policed to root out and condemn prejudice, then she’s perfectly consistent in saying what she says. Can you imagine Bill Bennett being as consistent? Has he ever said a good word about homosexuals? Similarly, I loathe the idea of hate-crime laws, but if you’re going to support them, as W does, then I can’t for the life of me see why gays should be excluded. Their exclusion from such laws is essentially an assertion that hatred of homosexuals is somehow justified in a way that hatred of Jews, say, isn’t. Sorry, but I don’t buy that one – and don’t see how any civilized person can. But nothing prepared me for the following statement by Mrs. Cheney: “This certainly isn’t the first time, but Eminem is certainly, I think, the most extreme example of rock lyrics used to demean women, advocate violence against women, violence against gay people. Elton John has been good in the past about speaking out on issues of equality for gay people, on issues of being against violent language against gay people. I am quite amazed and dismayed that he would choose to perform with Eminem.” Wow. For the wife of a Republican vice-president to say this is truly ground-breaking. Thanks, Mary! And thanks, Lynne! Now leave Eminem and Elton John alone.

Please don’t expect me to excoriate Eminem. If there’s one thing worse than misogynist, violent, homophobic but brilliantly funny hip-hop, it’s humorless, tedious culture warriors of right (Lynne Cheney) or left (GLAAD’s Joan Garry) trying to shut down hideous youthful exuberance. Eminem’s lyrics are vile but they are also deliberately ironic. They have an edge when you listen to them that is truly innovative. And they’re often funny. I think Elton John is to be congratulated for agreeing to duet with Eminem on the inspired track, Stan, about a crazed fan. Engagement, involvement, interaction is far healthier than the snooty condemnation required by the gauleiters of the cultural left. Man, one of them has even wheeled out the old epithet “Uncle Tom” to describe John. Besides, I don’t think pop music should somehow be socially responsible. The point of pop music is to push cultural edges and to get exactly the kind of reaction coming from the usual suspects that Eminem has duly provoked. Don’t his huffing critics realize they are doing exactly what he wants them to do? Have they learned nothing from their endless Kulturkampfs? (By the way, the best piece I’ve read on Eminem was by the terrific writer, David Plotz, of Slate. You can read it here.) In fact, there are some real cultural silver linings to Eminem’s success. He’s a wonderful antidote to p.c. nonsense – proof that the younger generation isn’t buying p.c. liberal cant which is now the orthodoxy for MTV execs. (The other good sign is that they’re still smoking cigarettes.) He’s genuinely post-racial – a young white kid from Detroit who is the new millennium’s definitive example of what Norman Mailer once called the “white negro.” His music transcends racial categories and is therefore truly transgressive. I don’t give a hoot about his 28-year-old adolescent homophobia. I’d be a little disconcerted if the next generation of straight (or gay) adolescent males were politically correct on the issue of homosexuality. And, in fact, Eminem is so obviously, deeply, weirdly transfixed by homosexuality that it doesn’t take a genius to figure out he obviously has some issues himself. So bring him on, I say. We should be able to listen to music that both offends and delights, shocks and intrigues – and that’s what Eminem does, all at once and in irrepressible, irresistible confusion.