National Public Radio political director Ken Rudin wrote in an April 30 blog post: "[D]id I really say on CNN that Hillary Clinton reminded me of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? I did. I wish I hadn't. It was a facile and dumb comparison." As Media Matters for America noted, while discussing the Democratic presidential primary race on the April 27 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning, Rudin said, "Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction."
In an April 30 blog post, National Public Radio political director Ken Rudin wrote: "[D]id I really say on CNN that Hillary Clinton reminded me of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? I did. I wish I hadn't. It was a facile and dumb comparison." As Media Matters for America previously documented, during a discussion about the Democratic presidential primary race on the April 27 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning, Rudin stated: "[L]et's be honest here, Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her."
In response, co-host T.J. Holmes said, “What, Ken?” Rudin replied, “Well, we'll figure that out, there's a lot of ways to imagine that.” Rudin returned to the analogy later, stating of Clinton: "[T]here may be a lot of pressure on her from the party bigwigs, whoever they are, to say, look, it's time to go, but she'll say, look, I'm in it until the end. I expect her to be in until the end, as Glenn Close was."
At the conclusion of the interview, Holmes said to Rudin, “We know you were at the correspondents' dinner last night in D.C., where the president was, and hear you all had a pretty good time. But you look good this morning for partying all night.” Rudin replied, “I'm faking it.” Co-host Betty Nguyen added, “Maybe that explains the Glenn Close analogy, who knows?” Holmes then stated: "Fatal Attraction, we don't get that reference on this show a lot."
From the April 30 Political Junkie blog post:
Finally, did I really say on CNN that Hillary Clinton reminded me of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? I did. I wish I hadn't. It was a facile and dumb comparison. And for all the people who took their marching orders from the Clinton campaign's e-mail blast instructing them to express their displeasure to me, rest assured, I have read every note. Some have been quite thoughtful, enough to establish some sort of dialogue. Others, regrettably, have contained an astonishing amount of vitriol and hate. It's distressing that many of those who complain the most about bigotry and ignorance exhibit it themselves.
The point that I was inartfully trying to make, as I wrote in one e-mail, is that I was mocking the “when-will-Hillary-drop-out?” conversations that have been going on since New Hampshire -- as in, well, if she loses N.H., she's finished. If she loses Ohio or Texas, she's gone. I wanted to make the point that she's not leaving the race any time soon, nor should she. She wins in Pennsylvania by nearly 10 points and people still want to know when she's getting out? Nonsense. I concede that I damaged my case by making the Glenn Close comparison, but I was trying to say sorry, you're not going to get rid of her. This is only the seventh inning. The race hasn't been going on “too long.” In fact, these states -- Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, etc. -- haven't been part of the conversation for decades. Let the people have their say and then we'll see who should drop out.