Oct
4

Hugh Hewitt, Investigative Journalist




Posted at 14:37 by Jillian

I am amazed at the article Hewitt has at Townhall right now. It isn’t even so much the fine investigative acumen it must have taken to conduct such a piercing, penetrative interview with a radical as dangerous as Hillary Clinton — it’s the impressive journalistic courage it displays that he was even willing to arrange such a thing.

hewittrudolph.png
Above: “And we haven’t even said we love you, Yeti.” *

Through my sources, I have managed to get access to Hewitt’s reporter’s notebook. While he is too modest himself to ever draw attention to the selfless feats of bravery he displayed in arranging his Clinton interview, I thought it only fair that you should know how hard he worked to get a chance to speak with America’s most wanted revolutionary.

August 28, 2007. Inside my forty-fifth Starbucks.

I have made contact with some of La Clintonista’s supporters at last. Even this first step has been hellish – I think I’ve been to every single Starbucks in Manhattan. None of these people speak English; the only way I’ve been able to win their trust is by imbibing the local drink – something called in their language a “half-caf triple shot foam only”. I don’t know what it is, but it tastes foul, and ever since I started drinking them (two days ago) I haven’t been able to sleep.

Navigating this concrete jungle for the last two days just serves to remind me how far from civilization I am. Everyone here walks, and when I ask the natives why they don’t just drive cars, they stare at me in blank incomprehension before laughing. I miss the comforts of home, where I am never more than ten minutes from a Walmart or a McDonald’s with a drive-thru.

But I don’t have time to think about now. I must focus on my goal, difficult as that might be with the godawful native music they seem to always be playing in these Starbucks – this time it seems to be something the locals call “Joni Mitchell”. I truly am in another world, aren’t I?

I guess word has gotten out that a stranger is in town, looking to speak with the elusive jungle rebel known as La Clintonista, because two of her followers have just approached me. They are not young, which is a surprise to me, but their dress immediately gives away their loyalties. The expensive tailored suits, the drab colors (perfect camouflage?), the leather attache cases – all the hallmarks of a true Clintonista.

They eyed me suspiciously. “Are you the one running around town making an ass of yourself trying to get in touch with Hillary?” they ask.

Their hostility does not surprise me; La Clintonista has only been able to survive as long as she has by surrounding herself with fierce and capable aides de camp.

“Yes,” I tell them. “I know La Clintonista has struggled to get her side of the story told, and I want to help her change that. I know she is passionate about her beliefs; for her to have given up her life as a simple governor’s wife in Arkansas in order to be reduced to being a mere U.S. Senator is not a sacrifice many people would be willing to make. Whether or not I agree with her, I take her commitment to her cause seriously, and I want her story to be told. Will you help me?”

I waited breathlessly. An inexplicable look passed between the two Clintonistas. Would they attack me? Would my life end here and now, in this wretched backwater Starbucks, alone and unmourned?

One of the Clintonistas reached into her attache case. My life flashed before my eyes. She pulled out a business card, and I released a breath I didn’t even know I had been holding. “Look, if all you want is to know her position on things, you could go to her website – it’s not really a secret. But here’s her press secretary’s phone number. Just call like normal people do, and stop running around the city accosting people in Starbucks and asking them if they know where ‘LaClintonista’s Jungle Headquarters’ is, okay? You’re freaking people out.”

Success! But at such a cost. Between all the native drinks and the terror of confronting an actual Clintonista, I don’t think I’ll be able to wear these chinos again.

I stand in awe of what this man has done. But this is only the beginning – the true drama begins when he actually sits face-to-face with That Woman, herself.

Sunday, September 30. In the Clintonista camp.

I have learned from my time here. Before entering the camp, I picked up the last bit of truly essential gear I will need to ensure the success of this interview at a native store called “Duane Reade”. I am ready. I am prepared. I have waited my whole life for this moment.

I am terrified.

When I am finally brought into the presence of La Clintonista, I am at first speechless. She is wearing a pantsuit! This is a woman who is not afraid to let people know exactly how far to the left she really is. I think I finally see why people flock to her; LaClintonista is less a woman than a leader. But in what fearsome direction she leads!

She wastes no time on pleasantries. “What did you want to talk about today? I have about ten minutes before I have to leave for New York; we’re going to be discussing a resolution to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Order of the Purple Heart, and I don’t want to miss that”.

I was honored that she already had enough trust in me to be so open about her hidden agenda. “Honoring the Purple Heart” was obviously code for something; I would have to investigate that later. For now, I stuck to my questions.

“Is it true, La Clintonista, that you support James Webb’s language about requiring Congressional approval before any use of force against Iran?” I believe that you always hit them with your hardest question first.

She gave me an odd look; one that sent a shiver down my spine. “It’s just Mrs. Clinton, really. Or Hillary, if you like. But yes, Mr. Hewitt, I think the Constitution is pretty specific on this point. Congressional approval, or no force.”

I was in shock. This woman intended to follow the dictates of the Constitution! Truly, her reputation as a far-left radical was well-deserved.

“And health care, La Clin – Mrs. Clinton?”

“Well, basically I’m talking about opening Medicare, paid for by the individual, to everyone, so if you don’t have health insurance through your job, you can opt to buy a Medicare-like plan at an affordable price.”

So. “Buying healthcare”. I see it was to be Communism, then, I thought to myself. She truly wanted to remake America from the bottom up. Thinking on this made me glad I had stopped at a Duane Reade first today.

I hope everyone reading this realizes what a debt of gratitude we all owe Hugh Hewitt for his intrepid journalistic integrity. He has faced America’s most dangerous radical and lived to tell the tale. Without him, how would we know of the imminent threat facing American democracy at the hands of her most dangerous radical?

There are more stories still to be told from these humble journalist’s diaries, but I think I will save them for another time. Hewitt’s fame is well-enough established with these brief excerpts for today.


* Toby Keith – ‘Yet’ (Dream Walkin’, 1997)

35 Comments »

  1. atheist said,

    October 4, 2007 at 14:42

    OK, I don’t get it. He sounds like he is mocking himself, and supporting Ms. Clinton. So, does Hewitt like Clinton?

  2. Pere Ubu said,

    October 4, 2007 at 14:55

    the ideas and staff she would bring to the White House would represent a sharp break with all that has gone before in American politics.

    Well, she’d bring a sharp break with what’s been going on for the last eight years, anyway.

  3. Christopher said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:00

    Sadly, no, silly atheist. Click the link and read what Hewitt actually wrote. Jillian, being a much more talented writer, has, shall we say, interpreted Hewitt for us, using the starting point that Hewitt refers to Clinton (sans irony) as a radical.

    God, how does Hewitt manage to drive to work in the morning? Someone so completely lacking real observational skills or sense of context must find himself driving on sidewalks and rivers frequently, saying to the police, “What do you mean, ‘The road curved?’ Roads don’t move.”

  4. atheist said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:04

    Oh, I see. I read the link and its just your basic right-wing screed. I thought Jillian was actually quoting him.

  5. atheist said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:11

    Someone so completely lacking real observational skills or sense of context must find himself driving on sidewalks and rivers frequently, saying to the police, “What do you mean, ‘The road curved?’ Roads don’t move.”

    Good 1

  6. Legalize said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:39

    From Hewitt’s actual fever-induced rambling:

    //First, Hillary refused to denounce the MoveOn.org assault on General Petraeus’ patriotism, and then doubled down by telling the general and the country that she had to suspend disbelief during his testimony –meaning of course that he ought not to be believed, meaning of course that he was lying. Such an accusation, no matter how calmly delivered, is not mainstream, but radical.//

    That’s when I started getting headaches.

  7. Tom Gellhaus said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:45

    Okay, if you’re going to compare Hugh to the Abominable, there is an important question that has to be answered….

    Does he bounce ?

    (Oh, and can we just tell him to shut up already and when we need a star put on top of the Christmas tree, we’ll call him? )

  8. Legalize said,

    October 4, 2007 at 15:47

    And as usual the comments are a brilliant cross-section of wingnutery.

  9. g said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:14

    Nice how his hair is whiter than his teeth.

  10. Jeff Fecke said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:15

    Then she announced co-sponsorship of James Webb’s measure requiring the president receive Congressional approval before any use of force against Iran, indicating that she would not use force against Iran without Congressional approval, thus signaling to the mullahs that she will arrive with a fresh round of appeasement measures as her policy.

    Yes, such a radical, liberal, crazy idea, having Congress approve military action. Why–

    Knock knock

    Hello? Why, it’s John Adams! What’s this? A copy of the U.S. Constitution with Article I, Section 8, “Powers of Congress” highlighted?

    The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

    My God…the Founding Fathers were a bunch of no-good hippies! What radical, evil, liberals!

  11. g said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:19

    From the TownHall article:

    She is way, way out there –a genuine ’60s girl

    What is with these people and their fixation on the 60′s? How old is Hugh Hewit, anyway, was he even alive in the 60′s?

  12. atheist said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:25

    What is with these people and their fixation on the 60’s?

    In their mind it was an era when civil rights ideals, and anti-war ideals, feminist ideas, a kind of populism too, began to be accepted by the populace. They may be right about the civil rights. They are too early for the anti-war & the feminism. I’m not sure about the populism. But that’s why they are fixated on it, and want to denigrate anyone associated with it.

  13. g said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:37

    I am not really familiar with Hugh Hewitt, but, curious about his age, I looked him up in Wikipedia.

    Hugh Hewitt (born February 22, 1956)….is a native of Warren, OH….Hewitt graduated from Harvard cum laude with a B.A. in Government in 1978.

    Now I know why he’s obsessed with the 60′s. It’s because he missed them.

    I know what Warren OH was like in 1968 – all that exciting stuff that other people were doing wasn’t happening in Warren. And if you’re only 12 years old you’ve got double reason to burn with envy, because even such lukewarm hippy scenes like Mt. Adams in Cincinnati are as far away to you as San Francisco and the East Village. And by the time you get out of your shitty little town and end up in Cambridge – well, those people aren’t wearing elephant-leg bell-bottomed jeans like the ones guys are still wearing in Warren, and you stand out like the rube you are.

    No wonder he’s obsessed with the 60′s and no wonder he hates Hillary and hippies. He missed the bus they all rode away on.

  14. Robert Green said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:38

    i’m sure hugh hewitt’s great great great great great great great grandfather was right there next to john adams (from massachusetts, home of lousy left-wing radicals since jonathan edwards, and i ain’t talkin’ bout a modern lover) telling him that article 1, section 8 would surely lead to us being overtaken by barbary pirate muslim huguenot huns or something. and pointing out that george the 3rd wears his frockcoat well and all this talk of revolution scares me and oh! i’ve wet my undergarment and so on.

  15. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    October 4, 2007 at 16:50

    The idea that anyone could possibly call Hillary Clinton ‘radical’ without their own irony gland exploding is incomprehensible. She’s about as radical as porridge.

    Hewitt graduated from Harvard cum laude with a B.A. in Government in 1978.

    So that’s an ordinary, non-honours, degree, in Government? I thought the Constitution, you know, kind of had something to do with government? But then I’m only an ignorant Aussie, and a cat to boot.* Albeit a cat with an honours degree, although only in mathematics.

    *No, I didn’t mean a cat that you should boot. Sigh.

  16. Lame Man said,

    October 4, 2007 at 17:01

    Hillary is so radical that she is running for government office! In a public campaign! While acting as an elected Senator!

    How will the nation survive such a radical movement?

  17. Phil Moskowitz, Lovable Rogue said,

    October 4, 2007 at 17:18

    -not just the Bush Administration, but America, along with France and Germany-

    Looks like someone is mad at the British for withdrawing their troops.

    Mon Dieu.

  18. Fishbone McGonigle said,

    October 4, 2007 at 17:44

    I thought Jillian was actually quoting him.

    As did I.

    I’ve found it to be a generally wise policy never to click on a Townhall link.

  19. Rufus said,

    October 4, 2007 at 18:13

    Hugh doesn’t realize it, but he would have felt right at home in Soviet Russia.

  20. zsa said,

    October 4, 2007 at 18:14

    I thought Jillian was actually quoting him.

    As I read it, I was thinking “uh-oh, this is smart, funny stuff. Have we misunderestimated this guy?”

    Sadly, no.

    And not to dump on his appearance, but he looks an awful lot like my late Grandma.

  21. t4toby said,

    October 4, 2007 at 18:23

    There is no freakin’ way I’m going to click that link.

    Nice try, Jill.

  22. The Visigoth said,

    October 4, 2007 at 19:57

    If I wanted to read about an evil albino, I’d grab a Moorcock novel.

    And sweet Jesus, there are only three real places in the United States: New York, San Francisco, and everywhere else.

  23. Notorious P.A.T. said,

    October 4, 2007 at 20:14

    “What do you mean, ‘The road curved?’ Roads don’t move.”

    Sweet )

  24. RubDMC said,

    October 4, 2007 at 20:21

    Aha! It’s been bugging me these many years, but now I know where I’ve seen Hugh before…

  25. Dorothy said,

    October 4, 2007 at 20:30

    But then I’m only an ignorant Aussie, and a cat to boot.

    You’re a cat? I thought Aussie’s were dogs?

    Albeit a cat with an honours degree, although only in mathematics.

    Ah, that explains it: my Aussie shepherd wasn’t the brightest dingo in the path: basic math was so beyond him. (He was a sweety, though, and deaf as a post.)

  26. piotr said,

    October 4, 2007 at 21:41

    Ah, if only Hewitt were correct!

    We really need some break with “bussiness as usual”.

    Even so, after reading this screed, I cheered up a little. Perhaps Clinton’s presidency will not be a disaster. 6 Ginsburgs on SCOTUS — that would be nice. Doing something about healthcare — something better than nothing, I guess. Finishing war with Iraq — overdue, overdue! Not starting another war — can we really be that lucky?

    Still, not a word about a serious approach to global warming.

    Judeo-Christian folks, tell me: why it is wrong to be radical? Because it is not MAINSTREAM. In Sodom, mainstream tried to rape visiting angels, and radical Lot was out, out there in his silly opposition. (By the way, do you guys appreciate the nice touch, how Lot offered his daugher to be raped and that was a GOOD THING?) That said, when radicals are in majority (as Hewitt morosely suspects), what does “mainstream” mean?

  27. piotr said,

    October 4, 2007 at 22:13

    Just in case a similar satire may be warranted, may I have the following suggestion: a boat (Staten Island Ferry) drops our hero at the mouth of a giant river. A terrible radical leader is reputed to dwell in the upriver hinterland. The journey upriver is arduous and full of danger. Before even reaching Canal Street our hero is almost crazy from the effects of triple shots he imbibes without knowing their true potency. As he is passing out on a bench of Washington Square, he overhears a conversation about the radical leader, but before he manages to grasp any meaning, he passes out.

    Day 2. Staten Island, while a bit weird, resembled the civilized world, but, while only one day of travel away, it could as well be forgotten. This territory was evidently controlled by Muslim overlords cruising back and forth in their yellow vehicles, haphasardly kidnapping natives there, only to throw them out somewhere else. Natives seem to be inured to this barbarian opression, and were raising hands in ritual gestures of submission. When not manhandled by the Muslim, natives were under incessant observation of Orientals who criss-crossed that territory on bicycles. Make no mistake — this was Land of Terror. Not surprisingly, many natives thronged to underground hiding holes, but what force propelled them back to the surface? Hunger?

  28. Robert M. said,

    October 5, 2007 at 0:22

    Jillian is WAY funnier. Also, she can form a coherent thought, which is an ability Hewitt, alone on his chilly peak of madness, can glimpse only on very clear days.

    As evidence, I submit the following excerpt:

    And now her $5,000 bonus for every baby born –HillaryCradleCare, a boondoggle reminiscent of George McGovern’s $1,000 per person pay-off from 1972.

    This is not a liberal’s targeted tax cut, but a massive expansion of federal spending –a new entitlement that no one had even previously thought to suggest!

    No one except George McGovern, which you said in the preceding goddamned paragraph. How do people like this get paid to write?

  29. stringonastick said,

    October 5, 2007 at 0:41

    Holy shit, that guy is only 2 years older than the hubby and I, and he looks like total crap. Either we’ve lived well and taken care of ourselves, or some really nasty things are about to suddenly happen to both of us.

    That said, I was nostalgic for the 60′s when I was in high school, and I had plenty of fellow travelers who were up for the sex, drugs & rock and roll thing; our own litte homage to the era that had just passed. Hugh is just perpetually pissed because no one asked him to our clubhouse, and he missed so, so much free love that his brain has withered from the resentment. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

  30. Larry said,

    October 5, 2007 at 1:22

    “In their mind it was an era when civil rights ideals, and anti-war ideals, feminist ideas, a kind of populism too, began to be accepted by the populace”

    Not sure I agree with that. IMO the Far Right sees the late 60s as a period of excessive liberalism which mainstream America has repudiated as loopy (or worse), and so they paint anyone who is not all for making Dumbya presidente-for-life as a 60s radical.

    Bonus point — as there were some literal revolutionaries in the late 60s/early 70s, so much the better to associate the obvious Marxist Hillary Clinton (who never met a big corporation she didn’t like) as a radical.

  31. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    October 5, 2007 at 2:57

    “In their mind it was an era when civil rights ideals, and anti-war ideals, feminist ideas, a kind of populism too, began to be accepted by the populace”
    Not sure I agree with that. IMO the Far Right sees the late 60s as a period of excessive liberalism

    Tomah-to, tomay-to.

  32. stringonastick said,

    October 5, 2007 at 3:10

    Of course they see it as a period of excessive liberalism, that’s why it must be shamed and spit upon at every possible opportunity so that anything that we libs consider good from that era can be rebranded as bad, very bad, or a sin against god. The fact that most folks are into the idea of civil rights, equal pay for both genders, and are now quite anti-war again has them getting their hate on in a big way.

  33. sarah said,

    October 5, 2007 at 9:31

    piotr, i won’t speak for all the other judeo-christian folks, but, um, you do realize that we don’t all think alike, right? just like all non-judeo-christian folks don’t think alike?

  34. piotr said,

    October 5, 2007 at 14:04

    sarah, my point was that MAINSTREAM is not a Juedo-Christian value (or any kind of value for that matter), although, of course, some will beg to differ.

    Hewitt (who perhaps is a member of some religion) one one hand thinks that MAINSTREAM is kind of stupid, as Sen. Clinton has good chances for being the next President, and in the same time it is a reliable arbiter of good and bad.

    It is not just that judeo-christian folks do not think alike, but Hewitt in the middle of his piece does not think alike with Hewitt from the opening part.

  35. JGabriel said,

    October 5, 2007 at 22:24

    “I [Hewitt] waited breathlessly. An inexplicable look passed between the two Clintonistas. Would they attack me? Would my life end here and now, in this wretched backwater Starbucks, alone and unmourned?”

    What a pity it is that it did not.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()