Damned Ambition

I expect Republican operatives to gin up fake controversies. I expect cable news outlets to pack interminable hours of airtime with fake controversies. I expect Tweety to shout himself hoarse about fake controversies until the last Friday flight leaves D.C. for Nantucket.

What I don't expect is one of Josh Marshall's outfits to accept the frame of a fake controversy.

TPM's Election Central:

We've just received our copy of Carl Bernstein's new book on Hillary, and something leaps right out at us.

Specifically: Bernstein's reporting directly contradicts one of the more important and more damning allegations about Hillary and Bill that is made by former Timesman Jeff Gerth and current Times reporter Don Van Natta in their big forthcoming Hillary book. ...

The charge in question in the Gerth-Van Natta book -- which is called Her Way -- is that just after Bill's election in 1992, he and Hillary were already plotting two terms for her in the White House. This revelation, among others, was a key one used to bolster one of the book's central themes -- the long-term ambitions harbored by Hillary.

Why is Hillary Clinton's ambition a "damning allegation?" Why is the allegation that she is ambitious any more "damning" than such an allegation about say, Mitt Romney? Wouldn't anyone seeking the most powerful position (and arguably the most difficult job) on the planet have to be at least somewhat ambitious (our current president notwithstanding)? Did Richard Nixon lack ambition? Did Jimmy Carter? Does Tom Tancredo? What about Barack Obama? He seems pretty darned ambitious. Is Obama's ambition a negative? Why does Hillary "plot", where others "plan?" Isn't a presidential campaign a plan by definition? And just what's wrong with a plan, anyway? FDR's entire young life was a plan for greatness (as was his cousin Teddy's). JFK's future was plotted by his father, whose original plan to guide son Joe Junior to the presidency was thwarted when Joe was killed in combat. Even Al Gore was merely "groomed for power."

I know that TPM's point is that (shock) someone (either Jeff Gerth, Don Van Natta, or Carl Bernstein) has their "facts" wrong, but why write this story in a way that accepts the Republican frame of the issue ("OMG! Hillary Clinton's ambition is out of control. Stop her now!")

Of course, it's conceivable that Hillary was privately scheming to run for President while telling her best friend she had no interest in elected office.

This reminds me of the real photo caption controversy about white people "finding" and black people "looting" food or other supplies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Newt Gingrich? Planning a presidential campaign. Rudy Giuliani? Exploring a presidential run. Fred Thompson? Considering all his options. Hillary Clinton? Power-mad bitch salivating over her secret scheme to take over (first) the country (then) the world. No wonder David Brooks compares her to Eva Peron and Tweety's panel laughs.

Shame on you, TPM, for accepting Hillary's ambition and long-term planning (if true at all) as a "damning allegation." All you had to do was re-write that first sentence:

Specifically: Bernstein's reporting directly contradicts one of the more important and -- in the eyes of her critics and opponents -- more damning allegations about Hillary and Bill that is made by former Timesman Jeff Gerth and current Times reporter Don Van Natta in their big forthcoming Hillary book.

Now I'm going to return to my monumentally ambitious double-secret private scheming and plotting to take over the local chapter of Drinking Liberally. Sheesh.