David Usborne: Our Man In New York
March 23rd, 2008
I shall be tipsily waving the flag of a certain European country this evening, celebrating its long history with plenty of national booze and, I trust, a few of its more delectable eats in the company of hundreds of its proud citizens who for myriad reasons find themselves displaced this side of the ocean these days.
It’s in my diary. March 17: “La Grande Soirée de la Francophonie” in New York. “Manhattan’s conversations will take on a distinctly French accent” on this night, the invitation confidently asserts. Mais, qu’est-ce que c’est cette nuit? Did Sarkozy move Bastille Day forward just like the United States last weekend unilaterally leapfrogged the rest of the world moving its clocks to summertime three weeks early?
No, not that. It seems that this is an annual bash when France honours a person or institution for helping evangelise its culture and tongue in North America. The winner this year is the City University of New York in whose buildings we will be gathering. Bravo. So maybe this is not a conspiracy, as I was beginning to suspect, to snub the Irish, for whom 17 March also has a certain significance.
Certainly, if Britain had organised a “Bagpipes and Big Ben Night” in New York today that would have been the allegation. But even we are not that insensitive. And who in their right mind would try to compete with the Irish in America on St Patrick’s? They turn the Chicago River green, clog city arteries with parades and their public house merriment is such to make Bourbon Street in New Orleans seem tame.
Truth is though, this year things are slightly out of kilter. While the 5th Avenue Parade – green stripe painted down the tarmac – will begin this morning as usual at 10, in other places celebrations have happened already. In Savannah, Georgia, where St Patrick’s Day has become a big tourist draw, most of the fun was last Thursday. Boston, Philadelphia and Milwaukee had their parades at the weekend.
Tags: easter, new, parade, york
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
I don’t think she can be faulted either…. unless she’s trying to claim a vital role in the decision making process of that administration. She seems to have implied that she was. If she had claimed to have filled the first lady’s role in an exemplary fashion no one would say boo about this. But, as is the pattern with the Clinton’s, she over-reached and now has to deal with this stuff.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
As much as I’m not American, and if I were I’d not be voting for Hillary, I think this campaign by NYT against Hillary Clinton is very questionable.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
it shows how smart the people of New York are that they elected someone from Arkansas to represent them.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
She was one of the thousands of people that was involved in the evil governments’ planning of 9/11. Why would she fly there, when she already knew what was going on. Duh.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I agree to a point. To be fair this is an unrepresentative look at her role in the administration. But, this is the road she took herself down. As long as she lied about her roles and experience in Bosnia, as long as her role in Northern Ireland is as suspect as it is, as long as her statements about NAFTA are as contradictory with what evidence exists she leaves herself open to these attacks.This may be propaganda, but it is the war she chose to fight. She knew, when she made her claims, all the evidence to the contrary that existed. She knew there were no snipers in Bosnia when she arrived at the airport, but she claimed otherwise to inflate her resume. She left herself open to the photos and videos that exist proving her a liar. She knew when she inflated her role in ‘bringing peace to Northern Ireland’ that other people were there who knew better. She could have said that, while she had issues with NAFTA, she had a role to play in her husband’s administration and helped get it passed. People would have understood that she was being a team player. She decided to take a different route and now her ‘experience’ is being vetted.Her ‘level of involvement’ is being judged with the evidence that exists and it’s not supporting her claims.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Hillary was just the president’s wife at the time. I don’t think she can be faulted for not having gone to New York for a PR/photo op on this occasion.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
i thought you elected a president in the us…not a president’s spouse. i know that here in australia i would be damn pissed if the prime minister’s wife started getting directly involved in politics. it’s not her job, noone voted for her.in spite of this, im quite sure there were times when hillary was getting involved in political matters when bill was getting blown by an intern and he’s viewed by many as a hero…just saying…
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Just a wild guess, but she probably wasn’t on the list of critical people to assemble in the situation room in response to a terrorist attack, assuming she even had clearance to participate.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
They endorsed her. That’s no way to lead a campaign against her.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
during hurricane katrina and the aftermath, condoleeza rice took in a musical on broadway. are we missing something? are musicals that good?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
So what? She was the wife of the president, not his assistant?Dont get me wrong I am not a Hillary supporter(far from it) but this is just splitting hairs to find faults in her that dont exist
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
so, she is perfectly “presidential”. almost as good as Bush with Katrina.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
So, if she was as important to the functioning of the Executive branch as she would have us believe wouldn’t she have been part of the process? I don’t think she should have been, she was a first lady not the president. But as long as she is holding those 8 years up as part of her exective experience that makes her cross the commander-in-chief threshold she opens herself up to attacks such as this. She’s told the world of her intimate involvement in her husband’s administration and that claim is falling apart and revealing her to be a fraud on that front.Just the “vetting” process she’s so fond of at work.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
So…?
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
OK, my mistake then. But this headline looks like a “hit”. Thank you for correction though.