John Harris of Politico has a nice column on Bill Clinton’s shrill, tempery performance saying this was the Bill Clinton who reporters saw every day back in the 90s, who Washington establishment types came to dislike. The only problem is that Harris is saying it now when it’s safe to say it; even Hillary has Bill to kick around this week. Where was this portrait of Bill when we needed it? There were many references to his temper in the press, but reporters didn’t let go about it. Only Clinton-haters like myself did.
The Clinton everyone is now seeing is the one we dislike, mean and ruthless and self-obsessed. As Mike McCurry, his press spokesman said, when it was too late, he was probably unfit to be president. Smart guy, I agree. Great politician, absolutely; and now we’re seeing that calculating mind in all its glory. Good president, I go along with that too. But character, bravery, selflessness–none of the above.
The other night a friend repeated the old saw to me that Clinton got impeached for a blowjob. I bit my tongue. This is false. Clinton got impeached because the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to maintain a valiant democratic principle, that even a president has to deal with an accuser in the courts. Clinton’s way of dealing with Paula Jones was to lie repeatedly under oath. (You’ll notice that Detroit’s mayor is now in trouble for the same sort of thing, saying under oath he wasn’t having an affair with an aide; and no one has started moveon.org.) Clinton flouted the rule of law out of a monstrous sense of his importance–and bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, on bogus George-Bush-like intelligence, when the House was voting to impeach. Had the press been more upfront about the Bill Clinton they were coming to know and hate, maybe the threats his people made to women he had gone out with would have come out, and he would have been forced from office. Al Gore would have gotten the job (and I wouldn’t have voted for Nader). As it is, the country has had to wait till now to see the real Bill.
"Lots of elite Democrats never liked the guy that much," Harris said. The insiders’ rage at him today is approaching the levels they felt when he pardoned all those money guys, including Marc Rich, at the last minute. Sadly, the Washington elite protected Clinton right through to the end. He was their boy…
Related posts:
{ 10 comments }
Huh – I'd forgotten about that side of him. I didn't read the press closely but I did read about his nastiness, his temper, and his abusiveness to "friends."
I have been disgusted with Hilary over 1) Laney Guanier, symbolic of Hilary's willingness to throw close friends under the bus for political gain; 2) Palestine – she's a Methodist, she went to Palestine in the 90s, she knows the issues and the realities and turned her back on it all to become Senator from NY; and 3) health care – Daily Kos says her biggest contributors are insurance companies.
I never vote on Middle East issues alone (if I did, I wouldn't vote) – but the big picture of Hilary makes her look really, really awful. Now you're reminding me of Clinton's failings. And I never liked what he did on welfare reform or Nafta. He only looks good to any of us in hindsight, after seven years of W.
John Edwards!
When is the the Washington elite going to, e.g., probe in MSM impeachment of Chaney and Bush? Shed a real spotlight on, e.g., the Office Of Special Plans?
True,very true. Clinton was too neoliberal in his policies, especially his economic and fiscal ones. He left a demoralized public whose apathy is a good reason why these wars are still going on.
Obama and Edwards are both superior to him. Indeed, his wife could better, if only she would jettison the old Clinton hands (Penn, Rubin, et. al.) and be her own person (isn't that what feminism is all about?).
Still, it is depressing to find all these oppressed groups-women, homosexuals, African-Americans, and yes Jewish-Americans-still look upon him with soft eyes. Just because he was good for them in their group aspect-as women, gays, blacks, jews-does not mean that he was good for them as people, nor that he was good for the country as a whole.
True,very true. Clinton was too neoliberal in his policies, especially his economic and fiscal ones. He left a demoralized public whose apathy is a good reason why these wars are still going on.
Obama and Edwards are both superior to him. Indeed, his wife could better, if only she would jettison the old Clinton hands (Penn, Rubin, et. al.) and be her own person (isn't that what feminism is all about?).
Still, it is depressing to find all these oppressed groups-women, homosexuals, African-Americans, and yes Jewish-Americans-still look upon him with soft eyes. Just because he was good for them in their group aspect-as women, gays, blacks, jews-does not mean that he was good for them as people, nor that he was good for the country as a whole.
True,very true. Clinton was too neoliberal in his policies, especially his economic and fiscal ones. He left a demoralized public whose apathy is a good reason why these wars are still going on.
Obama and Edwards are both superior to him. Indeed, his wife could better, if only she would jettison the old Clinton hands (Penn, Rubin, et. al.) and be her own person (isn't that what feminism is all about?).
Still, it is depressing to find all these oppressed groups-women, homosexuals, African-Americans, and yes Jewish-Americans-still look upon him with soft eyes. Just because he was good for them in their group aspect-as women, gays, blacks, jews-does not mean that he was good for them as people, nor that he was good for the country as a whole.
Women, gays , blacks and Jewish Americans….What does this mean? If one is an American goy white male, one should just bend over and be thankful? Thanks so much for your concern!
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that Clinton was not interested in goy white males, and that was(is) a major problem.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that Clinton was not interested in goy white males, and that was(is) a major problem.
agree with most of what u say Phillip, but Paula Jones and right-wing Supreme Ct opening up attacks on sitting president went too far. such an action would never be tolerated against a right-wing president like Bush.
And it's not–where has DK's impeachment gone? Who could argue BC's blow job was as important as how we got into the Iraq War?
Comments on this entry are closed.