Posted by Ruth O’Brien
Hillary Clinton is a “vessel” for the neocons who want to reinvade Iraq under the term “liberal interventionism”? Are the neocons getting more Greek, Babylonian, or Roman?
The masculine overtones in this piece about a dueling, or not so much dueling but ideologically independent, couple are breathtaking. To be sure, academics on summer research time love this kind of article. I mean, what’s better than a piece predicting the reemergence of our favorite nemesis – the neocons?
But the idea that this will metamorphose from a neocon intervention under W. into liberal interventionism under HC seems like a bit thick (or deep, depending upon your archeology), particularly if the New York Times reporter, or whoever Jason Horowitz is, likened HC to a “vessel.” (Is that a reference to pottery dug up in Greece, Babylonia, or Rome?)
Whether HC becomes a neocon or neoliberal vessel, and whether it’s categorized later by academics as neo-Babylonian, neo-Grecian, or neo-Roman, I highly doubt (and can only hope) that, although Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s spouse) was HC’s former State Department spokesman, it does not mean her former boss will propagate the views of her trailing spouse.
Take a look at HC’s record when it comes to supporting co-workers who are wives with downward-dragging, or just plain knuckle-dragging, spouses. Victoria can ask Huma* how loyal HC is. She can ask Huma how she’s able to separate the wheat from the chaff so the former third female Secretary of State can see the problem without being called a “vessel.” Why would HC want to be pulled back into Babylonia again, anyway? Didn’t Kagan read her new book yet? (HC admits she made a mistake in 2002, voting for W’s invasion.)
* (Disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner did it again. The sexting pattern is beginning to emerge, since there is some kind of correlation in which Huma is always by Hillary’s side, hawking HC, whenever this happens. But what do I know about trailing spouses, or any husband but my own?)