Prediction: In the next few months, before the redbuds and dogwoods spot the Virginia hills, the Northeast Democrats will throw Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump: Muslim soldier was a hero but his father 'has no right' to criticize me Interim DNC chair to impose 'tough standards' after email leaks Mark Cuban campaigns for Clinton in hometown of Pittsburgh MORE and company under the bus. It will open a portal for Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWasserman Schultz: 'Sometimes you just have to take one for the team' Chelsea Clinton's big moment Kaine as Clinton's VP pick sells out progressive wing of party MORE (D-Mass.). It will open a gate to the Democrats' future.
It will bring one of those moments not of euphoria but like the river ice breaking and the flows cascading into a spring dawn as you might find in an old black-and-white Sergei Eisenstein movie. Or it might even be a Nixon moment, like Watergate, or even a Joe Welch/Joe McCarthy moment, like that in the documentary on the Army hearings, where Welch raises his voice and says, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” and all at once it melts away. In the end, the Clintons are not appropriate American representatives for the rising century. They are not appropriate for America post-9/11.
And this is the talisman, from the lead editorial today in The New York Times: “The latest report on the 2012 debacle in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed in an attack on an American diplomatic mission, offers new details and a chilling bottom line: the tragedy was ‘preventable.’ ”
But the “bottom line” in this lead is the Times's use of the word “chilling.” Barely days ago the Times pitched a front-page “investigative” piece it called “exhaustive,” with upscale graphics to rise it over the tawdry, to advance the case that it was indeed all the work of a redneck populist slamming Islam, just as former U.S. diplomat Susan Rice had claimed again and again on Sunday news shows. (In other words, as nihilist sympathizers and fellow travelers claimed then and today, like 9/11, it was our fault.)
And not for the first time has the Times bent over backward to appease radical Islam. Indeed, it leads the way for the impoverished moral state of appeasement and implied, mnemonic, anti-Semitism worldwide today in pop culture and American academia. (We blame ourselves. We blame the Jews.)
Make no mistake, although California Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinDems urge Obama to release info on Russian links to DNC hack Hotel lobby cheers scrutiny on Airbnb GOP platform attempts middle ground on encryption debate MORE (D) wants the record to be clear that she condemns any effort to use this report for political purposes, as the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said yesterday, it will. Because this is about more than Hillary Clinton. It is about the failure of New York City to lead; it is about the failure of New York City to justly and equitably represent liberal temperament in America these past 20 years, leaving America behind.
There are two things: First, it is about the failure of The New York Times as a responsible American organ and its transition to a “globalist” organ; it is indeed about Bill, about Andrew Weiner, about Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio as representatives of pre-9/11 America and about America rising to its own salvation in opposition. And second — post hoc, ergo propter hoc — it is about New York and America not yet ready to face the need and difficult responsibility to defend itself against radical Islam. New York may never. But we will.