Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Battle of NY's "SOBs"
Both Cuomo, de Blasio Heirs to Clinton Politics
Since Election Day 2013, there’s been a tight struggle between Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio to determine, not just who’s the King of New York, but who’s the biggest “SOB.” That is, who’s the true “Son of Bill” — the rightful heir to that other Bill who still looms over Democratic politics: Bill Clinton.Labels: Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Bill de Blasio
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
"Normal American Behavior"
"First of all, he's not capable of being like Clinton [who's] much more cued in to normal American behavior than Obama."
"[Obama is] a very aloof kind of personality," whose "ability to cue off normal Americans is very limited."
Ex-House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton:
“Clinton found out about the Gingrich affair and called Newt over to the White House for a private meeting between the two of them,” Armey said in an interview with the World Magazine posted Thursday. “Clinton said, ‘You and I are alike.’ Which meant, shut up about Monica or I'll start telling your story,” Armey said. “Newt and Clinton actually developed sort of a bond over it.”
Ah, that good old normal American behavior. Mr. President, forget about remaining faithful to Michelle! That's just not normal American behavior! Besides, if you hook up with some White House 20-something hootchie-mama and get the goods on Speaker Boehner's jump-off -- who knows, you might have a bonding experience!
And balance the budget too!!
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich
Monday, April 19, 2010
Two Drivers Asleep At The Wheel
Josh Marshall's TPM has the details on the SEC's inspector general report on the agency's handling of Texas billionaire Allen "Madoff of the Southwest" Stanford:
"[T]he SEC's Fort Worth office was aware since 1997 that Robert Allen Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, having come to that conclusion a mere two years after Stanford Group Company ('SGC'), Stanford's investment adviser, registered with the SEC in 1995. We found that over the next 8 years, the SEC's Fort Worth Examination group conducted four examinations of Stanford's operations, finding in each examination that the CDs could not have been 'legitimate,' and that it was 'highly unlikely' that the returns Stanford claimed to generate could have been achieved with the purported conservative investment approach."Over the next 8 years"!?!?!
Over two administrations, the Fort Worth office conducted these "investigations," and just concluded, nothing to see here, move along...Oversight, overlook? Same diff, right?
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Securities and Exchange Commission
Monday, November 16, 2009
Partying Like It's 1994
Like the Ghost of Christmas Past, the specter of 1994 haunts the contemporary political scene. The Obama administration is desperate to learn from the mistakes of the Clintons in 1993 and 1994; the Republicans use those years to inspire them to remember how quickly the electoral landscape can change.
In the clearest example of this dynamic, the Obama White House made the early decision to allow Congress to take the lead on health care -- a 180 degree move from the 90s effort when Bill and Hillary Clinton rode roughshod over the health-care drafting process. That was a decision that ended up backfiring and creating much ill-will between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, going in the opposite direction has caused problems of its own -- as the current health-care process has demonstrated. Similarly, administration is trying to stay away from blatantly controversial social issues, so as to avoid a repeat of Clinton's gays-in-the-military debacle. Indeed, one could look at the Obama's shying away from both lifting "don't ask, don't tell" and intentionally side-stepping any gay-marriage political issues as a way of preventing a replay of the Clinton disaster.
On the other hand, the '94 parallel has helped fire up Republicans. This year's off-year GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia are seen as parallel to the results in '93 that anticipated the '94 "Republican Revolution." Heck, like '94, a Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is mired in ethics controversies (Dan Rostenkowski then, Charles Rangel now). Over the weekend, Newt Gingrich -- principal architect of that uprising -- even started talking about working with the RNC to put together a "Contract With America" 2.0.
Given these parallels, can Democrats stop history from repeating? Well, obviously, if the party gets health-care reform through this time, that's a legislative triumph instead of a failure. However, considering that average middle-class Americans won't necessarily see any benefits of the legislation for years to come, it will be a target that Republicans can focus on in both 2010 and 2012. The argument will be that Democrats passed a $1 trillion legislative bill -- but its benefits are slow to perceive -- at best. Toss in the $800 billion stimulus package -- and the fact that the unemployment rate will likely be above 10 percent for most of 2010 -- and a powerful narrative against all-Democratic Party rule could be made.
How will Democrats react?
Well, given how Obama has tried to do the opposite of what Clinton did, look for the president to start moving in a more centrist/right direction in anticipation of the '10 midterms -- rather than wait until the presidential re-elect (as Clinton did in '95-'96). In '94, it was the so-called "angry white males" turning out that voted in a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years. Figure that the Obama political operation might be looking at the "Tea Party" movement as the 21st century version of that demographic. But Obama also knows that the share of the electorate identifying itself as independent has grown in the last several years. That group swung from going narrowly Obama last year to voting GOP by as much as 2-1 in the Jersey and Virginia elections. Obama has to figure out how to make more of those independents vote Democratic (or at least not become hostile to Democrats) next year.
And so, word leaked last week that the White House will focus on fiscal discipline and deficit reduction next year. Of course, this is a rather savvy idea in that the fiscal stimulus was back-loaded: Most of it hasn't been spent yet, meaning that the economy should be stimulated in '10 -- and, the White House hopes, will start creating jobs. The broader strategy will recognize that conservatives will be fired up regardless -- as they were in '94 -- so how does the White House minimize the damage? Obama's younger voters certainly didn't show up in this year's campaigns, partly explaining the drubbing Democrats received. And it won't be easy to tell liberals that spending has to be controlled. However, targeting independents by focusing on controlling the budget (at least rhetorically) may work -- or at least may keep them contented enough that they won't swing over to the GOP as they did this year.
Another area, where Obama may make at least some overtures in a centrist direction is in immigration. The administration is talking about reviving the comprehensive plan that Bush tried to get through. However, Obama has, arguably, been even tougher on immigration than his predecessor. The administration has already identified more than 100,000 immigrants -- of varied status -- who are already in the criminal justice system. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is already moving against immigrants who are arrested and identified as already having criminal records. ICE then manages to place an indefinite hold on them while their criminal prosecution takes place. Once that is complete, the agency can begin deportation proceedings.
For those people adamantly against any "pathway to citizenship" plan to deal with illegal immigration, this program will not speak to them. However, for more middle-of-the-road voters, this will sound like a good reasonable idea -- and sound like the administration is working to keep the country safe from illegals that might commit violent offense.
Fiscal discipline. Working to keep the country safe (on the immigration front). These are a couple of areas where the Obama administration will try to put forward a more moderate type of governing after this year's Big Bang troika of spending, bailouts and company takeovers. (And keeping their fingers crossed that the stimulus works as it is supposed to.)
So, in game-planning so early for 2010, it's clear that the White House is worried, given the slowness of the economy to turn around. So, unlike '94, this Democratic administration appears to to be more proactive in the mid-term elections. One thing's is known, this will be an awfully long year until Election Day of 2010.
The sides have already been joined.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Yankees White House Stimulus
The championship round of the national pastime should be a moment of unity. Save for supporters of the teams playing in the Fall Classic, the country should come together and celebrate a sport as American as apple pie.
Alas, this year's World Series carries with it serious built in conflicts. As The New York Times pointed out Tuesday, poor New York Mets fans are torn between hating their division rival Philadelphia Phillies and their crosstown rival Yankees.
With such hate to go around, there is no joy in Flushing this week. (And, come to think of it, in Cleveland either, considering their Cy Young award winning pitchers of the two previous seasons -- the since-traded CC Sabathia and Cliff Lee -- are the respective Game 1 pitchers for the Yankees and the Phillies).
But if you think that's bad, consider the plight of an even more overlooked group with conflicted loyalties. I speak of the Republican Yankee fan. Based on stereotypes, one would think that Yankees and Republicanism go together like hot dogs and mustard. The Yanks are baseball royalty and have long had the biggest player payroll in the sport. They're the one that has to pay a painful luxury "tax" -- punishing them for making and spending the most money. The similarities with the Republican Party is obvious.
However, let's go back a few years: As we've mentioned in this space before, in an otherwise criminally- overlooked article six years ago, the New York Observer's Jonathan Rosenthal pointed out that, since George Steinbrenner became principal owner of the Bronx Bombers in 1973, they've never won the World Series when a Republican has been in the White House.
A cursory look seemed to bear him out: Yankees made the W.S. in 1976 (Gerald Ford) but were swept by the Reds. They won the next two (Jimmy Carter). They then made it back in '81 (Ronald Reagan) -- only to lose to the same Dodgers team they beat in their two previous appearances.
The Yankees wouldn't make it back to the Fall Classic for fifteen years -- covering three GOP administrations. In '96 (Clinton), they
won and proceeded to win three more times over Clinton's second term. They made it back in 2001, but oops! George W. Bush was now in office: Despite playing in one of the most exciting series in recent memory, the Yankees lost to the Arizonna Diamondbacks.
Rosenthal called this strange pattern "the curse of Nixon," pointing to Steinbrenner being suspended from baseball in 1974 because of illegal contributions to Nixon's re-election campaign.
But still, even with all that evidence, when Rosenthal's article appeared, the Yanks had just concluded their sixth Series appearance in eight years. Surely, they would win at least one Series in the Bush years -- even assuming he won re-election, right?
Nope. Since then, Rosenthal's analysis/prediction has held true -- and then some. Adding insult to injury, one year later, not only didn't the Yankees win the World Series, they didn't make it -- and their long-suffering arch-enemies, the Boston Red Sox, finally "reversed the Curse" (of the Babe -- not Tricky Dick) and won their own world championship for the first time in 86. Oh, and George W. Bush won re-election a few days after that. In the next four years, the Yankees wouldn't even make it to the league championship series -- and completely missed the playoffs in 2008.
Now, obviously, having a Democrat in the White House doesn't guarantee Yankee success in the Series (they made the postseason in both '95 and '97, but didn't go all the way). But, it sure as heck seems to enhance their chances.
So, now consider what it must be like to be Republican Yankee fan. Democrat Barack Obama is now president of the United States -- a fact you probably don't like. However, the Yankees are back in World Series -- with one of their strongest-looking teams in years. Even Alex Rodriguez is hitting in the playoffs -- something he never did during the Bush years. Is it possible that Barack Obama really is 'The One" (not to be confused with "The Natural")?
Does the Republican Yankee fan silently thank the Fates that there is a Democrat president somehow being a good luck charm for the most storied franchise in history? Is just Obama's presence providing -- gasp!! -- a "stimulus" of the sort that Goldman Sachs would just die for? Talk about the rich getting richer!!! What ultimately is the Republican Yankee fan to do -- switch teams? Switch parties? Just mark it down to some bizarre coincidence?
And, goodness knows, there's at least three -- and possibly, seven -- more years when this horrible conflict could raise its infernal head!!!
Oh, the horror!!!
Oh well, in the meantime: Go Yankees!!! (I'm thinking in six games.)
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, New York Yankees, Ronald Reagan
Friday, October 09, 2009
A Premature Political Prize
Lose the Olympics, get the Nobel Peace Prize?
So, exactly one week after one communal world organization (the International Olympics Committee) delivered President Obama a personal snub by rejecting Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games, another one (the Nobel Prize Committee) comes up with a "do-over"?
President Obama is now the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Obama, said the committee, has "given [the world's] people hope for a better future."
Huh?
In its own way, this is almost as embarrassing as Chicago getting dissed by the IOC in the opening round last week -- despite Obama's overtures. He's now been recognized internationally, even as he juggles with a struggling economy and a daunting agenda domestically.
With all due respect to the president, he hasn't done anything to earn such an award, even by the often-warped political messaging in which the Nobel Peace Prize Committee delves.
By contrast, Jimmy Carter didn't get the award when he brokered the 1978 Middle East peace accord between Israel and Egypt; he got it years later as sort of a Lifetime Achievement Award (that also served to poke the Bush administration that was ramping up the case for war with Iraq). Similarly, Bill Clinton never got an award despite his attempts to get a deal done between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the late-90s.
Al Gore got the prize a couple of years ago, but that was also another political statement that affirmed his years of lobbying to get the world to take on global warming.
But this one takes the cake. Talk about premature! The president has made several trips abroad and made many speeches declaring that America was putting aside its presumed belligerence of the last few years. Most notably, Obama spoke at Cairo University to deliver an address to the "Muslim World." These have been part of what presidential critics caustically refer to as Obama's "apology tour."
But, apropos of a charge that Hillary Clinton made during the campaign last year, these are just "words" -- a series of speeches. They are neither one seminal action that brings about peace or understanding between long-antagonistic peoples -- nor, at 48, has he managed to build a body of work worthy of a prestigious award. (Though his anti-Iraq War campaign rhetoric undoubtedly won him some points.)
In fact, given that the committee has a Feb. 1 deadline, Obama had only been in office less than two weeks before he was nominated. This is exactly the opposite of the Arizona State University farce earlier this year. Then, the university chose to snub the president who was delivering a commencement address by not giving him an honorary degree -- because his "body of work" was not yet complete. In fact, having been elected president was a worthy enough achievement to merit an honorary degree.
The Nobel Peace Prize supposedly once meant something, reserved for truly large achievements on the world stage. On that measure, the jury is still way out on President Obama's life and career.
On its face, skeptics could reasonably conclude that the Nobel committee became infatuated with the concept that the American people managed to elect a black man president -- and awarded him for that seminal moment.
Bu that accomplishment was as much about the nation as it was the man. It had nothing to do with the supposed criteria for earning a Nobel Peace Prize. The committee should be embarrassed.
Labels: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nobel Peace Prize
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Hillary's '90s Flashback
After losing to Barack Obama last year -- and then having to go work for him -- one would have thought that some of Hillary Clinton's fabled anger would have come to the surface before now.
But, of course, the lady usually can hold all these things back -- except when it involves Bill Clinton.
That truism was on display Monday when the usually unflappable secretary of state just lost it in response to a Congolese student's rather innocent question -- which was actually mistranslated to Secretary Clinton:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo."You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman.
Oops!
As America learned during the '90s, with the Clintons, you may get a fair portion of competence and skill on the policy side -- but you also get about two parts soap-opera and high drama for every part of the serious stuff. That was true before the Monica Lewinsky saga broke -- though that cultural and political watershed was the greatest manifestation of that trend.
After six months staying out of the global spotlight, Bill Clinton came back with a vengeance last week as the public point man for the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from a North Korean prison. The scene at the Burbank, California airport when the Clinton delegation returned was almost a perfect scene of '90s redux: Bill got the headlines (and the girls); Al Gore stood on the sidelines. Only thing was, Hillary was, literally, out of the picture. She was already launching her Africa visit.
It must have been truly frustrating. As was widely known, the actual deal for the release of the journalists was cut by the State Department -- run by Hillary Rodham Clinton -- well before Bill came on the scene. He was merely the last bargaining chip requested by Pyongyang.
Yet, one would think -- from the fawning headlines -- that this was a total Bill Clinton production: The Big Dog was back on the scene, bringing good times -- just like the Nineties.
Hillary thought all this had been behind her. She was no longer "First Lady." She has had three semi-careers in the nine years since Bill left the presidency -- senator, presidential candidate, secretary of state. And now, in one moment, Bill had eclipsed her again -- after she had done all the hard work!!
No wonder she snapped when she thought she was being turned into a mouthpiece for her husband.
One person certainly doesn't have nostalgia for the 1990s.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
What Does the U.S. Get As Bill Gets Il?
International news rarely elicits purely good, win-win scenarios. So too with events in North Korea this week.
The families of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee have every reason to be elated today at their release from the clutches of an evil Korean regime. They had been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for "spying" (meaning they were doing their jobs).
Former President Bill Clinton, the "Big Dog" of the Democratic Party, must be elated to be seen once again as a player on the international scene. (Get rid of those naughty thoughts of him being a "player" in the other sense -- picking up two chicks, etc.). Even if the deal had been cut by the State Department well before the former president headed to Pyongyang, he looks like the catalyst that got things done.
But the person most elated must be Kim Jong-Il, the physically deteriorating dictator. After insulting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just a couple weeks back, Kim has managed to get the United States to send her husband on a mission of mercy. Of course, the secretary must have signed off on it, but it's still humiliating nonetheless: She's got the official portfolio now, but she has to step aside -- again -- for her husband. And who has brought whom to the negotiation table? Has the United States gotten the Pyongyang to cooperate? Or has Kim gotten the photo-op of lifetime? Kinda seems obvious. Vice-President Al Gore -- for whom Ling and Lee work at Current TV -- tried to intercede. It didn't work.
But what must newly-sworn in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be thinking right now? He has some nice American bargaining chips of his own: Three hikers who wandered into Iran from across the Iraq border a few days ago. If one member of the former "Axis of Evil" was able to get a former president to bargain for the release of three accused spies, what can Iran get? And Iran can at least say that it's been down this road before: It unilaterally released Iranian-American journalist/former beauty queen Roxana Saberi -- who had been convicted of spying. It's been the "good boy" -- and all it got for its trouble was the United States tacitly giving its blessing for the green revolution.
President Obama -- via Bill Clinton -- may get some momentary good feelings coming out of North Korea for this big international gambit. But his own headaches -- from what rogue regimes might think they can get out of the U.S. -- could be just beginning.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kim Jong-Il
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The Dumma Bubba
It wasn't supposed to be quite this way. Yeah, John Edwards was idealized by many Democrats as "the next Bill Clinton." By that, they meant that he was the good-looking, smooth-talking Southern moderate that would follow Clinton's path to the White House.
He shared the former presidenet's modest background: The son of a mill-worker, as Edwards would always remind voters, became a ridiculously successful trial lawyer, by managing to click with jurors. Eventually, his success led him to winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1998.
Instead of going for re-election, Edwards decided to make a presidential run in 2004. He finished a distant second to John Kerry, but still managed to get the number two slot on the presidential ticket. In an ideal world, he would have been well-positioned to be a leading candidate for 2008. That didn't happen -- partly because of the historic efforts of Hillary Rodham Clinton and a guy named Barack Obama.
Yet, even with that, things couldn't have gone more disastrously wrong. Instead of the White House, Edwards' career has ended up in a Bizarro World version of the Clinton Story. Unlike Bill, this good-looking, smooth-talking Southerner got caught having an affair BEFORE he became president. Worse, there's an illegitimate child (which he denies -- though no one believes him). Worse, he has a wife sick with cancer (though he claims the affair happened when the illness was in remission) -- making him look like a sleazeball and a cad.
Oh, and wife Elizabeth just released a tell-all, what-it's-like-being-the-aggrieved-wife-of-a-cheating-jerk biography. Could it possibly get any worse for John Edwards?
Well, yeah, it could and it has: Like Clinton, the affair of the heart (or other parts of the anatomy) is now headed for the criminal courts: The U.S. Attorney in his native North Carolina has announced an investigation into whether campaign funds were used to keep his affair with Rielle Hunter secret.
Which makes this entire affair a tragic farce. From Edwards' side, it is farce that couldn't happen to a non-nicer guy. There's a certain sense ofschadenfreude that envelops this. He was such the insufferable pretty boy that -- were this a Greek play -- it would be said that the gods needed to punish him for his vanity. But, in the real world in which we all live, one wonders how this saga can end in any good way.
Elizabeth Edwards' cancer is incurable and she has what could be a few years to live. But, after everything her husband has put her through over the last few years, does she spend her remaining time with him and her younger children? Or does she take the children and leave? She knows the emotional drama the kids will have to deal with, in terms of her inevitably declining health. As a mother, she wouldn't want to expose those kids to even more anguish of a family break-up. How does a good mother make such a choice?
And an even better question: How does a sleazy lawyer, ex-senator and wannabe president of the United States even begin to live with himself after all he's put his family through?
Labels: Bill Clinton, John Edwards
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Grand Slam
But, beyond that, Bill Clinton demonstrated why, despite his fumbles on the primary trail campaigning for his wife, he is still the premiere political master of the last twenty years. Furthermore, his speech -- remarkably concise, nuanced and balanced between domestic and international concerns -- retrospectively made Hillary's Tuesday night speech even better. The major criticism of Hillary's generally well-received speech was that she never stressed that Barack Obama was ready for the challenges -- particularly those in foreign policy and national security -- of the presidency.
Bill Clinton filled that part in -- and then some. So, together, the two made a real one-two punch. Hillary's address was something of a personal one to her supporters, explaining why she ran -- and how Obama's candidacy can help push those concerns. Tonight, Bill came across as the elder statesman of the party -- showing what Democratic policies can actually do with a president who can enact them. Most significantly, he compared Obama with himself -- not in a self-serving way, for once: He said that he was declared too young and inexperienced as Obama is now.
Now, Republicans and conservatives will find much to milk in that statement: The fact that American interests were repeatedly attacked by Islamist radicals during a decade when, generally speaking, America was respected in the world may be a fair critique of the Clinton years. That said, for those not necessarily invested in either conservative analysis or Republican policies, if they only recall eight years of general peace and prosperity, Clinton's blessing of Obama as "ready to be president" may well go a long way. The only thing Democrats should be upset about from Clinton's speech is that it was in the 9 o'clock hour -- a full hour before the broadcast networks give their brief coverage. This was a speech worthy of being seen by as many people as possible.
In short, his appearance demonstrates why, a half-century later, Republicans must still think that the most significant legislation they ever got passed was the 22nd Amendment. Otherwise, that guy may well have been finishing his fourth term.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, was as disciplined as Bill Clinton (given each man's talent for verbosity, convention planners must have feared the night going into the wee hours): He finished speaking a few minutes before 11. He showed why he brings some considerable assets to the ticket. Even though he got the cadence wrong on his "That's not change; that's more of the same," that passage going after McCain on foreign policy issues was a powerful, and, I believe, effective.
The parade of military figures coming out in support of the Democrats was also impressive, but again, except for people watching on C-SPAN, how much of America saw it?
Still, this was a very powerful night for the Democrats, both rhetorically and image-wise. The Clintons, Biden, Kerry and others have done everything they possibly could for Barack Obama: Now it's up to him on Thursday to see if he can close the deal himself.
Labels: Bill Clinton, democratic national convention.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Thursday Round-Up
1) Yep, it's still about them -- Bill and Hill. Still aggrieved over Obama's taking the nomination. Of the two, Bill is having the hardest time getting over it:
Not helping is the fact that Obama has yet to follow up on the tentative dinner plans he and Bill Clinton made at the end of the primary season. "It's personal with him, in terms of his own legacy," says a friend of Bill Clinton's. "And the race stuff really left a bad taste in his mouth."
Ironic, given that it wasn't that long ago that dinner (pizza) plans with Monica Lewinsky ended up leaving a bad taste in her mouth.
2) Ah, just what we need -- a Marion Barry for the 21st century (well, without the crack). Ladies and gentlemen, Kwame Kilpatrick.
3) John McCain: Against "inflation" before he was for it. Let's hope the "pressure" isn't getting to him. Of course, it can be difficult to guage these things. Whole thing seems pretty tired to me.
4) The Village Voice's Wayne Barrett identifies the hidden culprit in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac meltdown. And no, it's not a Republican -- or anyone in the Bush administration.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Kwame Kilpatrick
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Kicked To The Curb
Do you regret referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President?Here all along, Bill Clinton thought he was seen as Kunta Kinte by the black community, only come to find out that, actually, his name is "Toby" -- or maybe just, "Mud."
—Justin Dews, Cambridge, Mass.
People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
By the way, Ms. Morrison is singing quite a different song (of Solomon?) than what she used to say back in the day. Her actual quote from the 1998 New Yorker piece: "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."
Yep, that's every black person I know (note to self: You don't play the sax, remember?).
Of course, those of us with very long memories know that Bill was never really black, because of a very important fact that Ms. Morrison omits out of politeness.
I couldn't find the original (though I may have the magazine at home), but thankfully the Internet is one huge memory bank:
He just can't get over the Penthouse article in which Gennifer Flowers said, "Bill Clinton has a small penis and his wife has fat ankles and they'll just have to get over each others' imperfections."Day-um! Every trope of blackness -- except "white" where it really counts!
Life just sucks sometimes, don't it?
Labels: Bill Clinton, Toni Morrison
Friday, April 04, 2008
That $5 Million Hillary Loaned Her Campaign...
Hey, I'm a capitalist. Not bad work if you can get it.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, tax returns
Monday, January 21, 2008
Got MLK?
Nice clip here from MLK Day ceremonies in Atlanta.
Oh, one slight piece of advice for Sen. Obama: Don't take the bait. Attacking Bill Clinton does you no favors. He's not the candidate. Whenever Candidate A gets into a fight with Candidate B's attack dog, Candidate A loses twice: Candidate B gets to remain above the fray, while Candidate A gets dragged down into the mud -- and becomes unable to spread his own message.
That is, of course, exactly what the Clintons were hoping.
One more thing: The "stop lying about my record" gambit didn't work too well for Bob Dole, circa 1988, if memory serves...
Labels: Bill Clinton, Mike Huckabee
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fine "Young" Cannibal
"In this country we had a bad group of events starting with Bill Clinton and leading up to Bush. Clinton was a catalyst for a lot of this stuff because he played out on a moral stage a very bad scenario. He lied directly to the American people about something that has to do with core family values.
"He's not a bad person; he made a mistake. but in lying he made a worse mistake. And although it was very human and people forgive him for doing that, he gave the other side, the conservative side, the aggressive side, a huge opening. If it hadn't been for what he did, Al Gore would have been president. We would have had a president who understands the environment. We would have had a smart man in there."
Neil, you're kidding right? Are you telling me that it was NOT some evil right-wing conspiracy that got Bush into the White House? It was NOT because Bush had the Supreme Court in his back pocket?
I wonder how long it will take before the rest of the Left throws Neil under his own tour bus.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Neil Young
Monday, August 20, 2007
Hope Springs Eternal
Another point that could be made about Clinton: Like Reagan and unlike either the incumbent president OR the woman who hopes to succeed him, he didn't get a special hand-up into the political elite by birth or marriage.
He did it the "modern" old-fashioned way: He earned it.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee
Monday, June 04, 2007
Can Sports Make a President?
Think back to the 2000 presidential election. Not only did we not find out who would be the next leader of the free world on the actual election night, but it took over a month to finally determine who would be the next Commander in Chief. Imagine if that could be translated into a sporting event? It would be like a Super Bowl going into 18 sudden death over times. Or a baseball game venturing into possibly 50 innings. Except instead of a trophy on the line, and pride you have the weight of the free world. Human lives, jobs, wealth, worldly decision are at stake in a heated election. Can you ask for better competition with more at stake?
Is it any coincidence then that most of our presidents have aspired to be involved in athletics? Even if they are not gifted athletes they want to be involved in some sport that allows them to vent their stress into a healthy arena.
Teddy Roosevelt when he was President asked engineers to allow for the Potomac river to flow right up to the White House, so that every morning he could go for long swims before returning to work.
President Ulysses S. Grant was a champion horseback rider. After his presidency, he went across the world on a two year tour, showing of his skills on a horse.
President Dwight Eisenhower guided us through the beginnings of the Cold War. He managed his stress through golf. He had a handicap of only 14-18, and it is rumored that he only broke 80 three times in his life.
Recently we all learned what kind of athlete President Gerald R. Ford was in his day. He could have been a professional football player, but turned down certain NFL contracts in order to pursue a career in law.
Who can forget when President George W. Bush, himself a former MLB owner of the Texas Rangers, threw a perfect strike at Yankee Stadium a month after September 11, 2001, during the World Series while the New York crowded chanted "USA, USA, USA."
I realize that I may be showing a bias here since every president I mentioned was or is a republican. But this holds true for democrats as well. President Clinton used his daily jog as way to garner support for bills while he was in the White House. President Kennedy was an avid sailor, and would use his vacations to play everything from golf to football.
President Franklin Roosevelt fought against his polio stricken body by going down to Georgia, using intense physical therapy to rise out of his wheel chair.
It is clear just how great the connection is between our presidents and athletics.
Is it any wonder then that as our nation begins its search for new leadership in the year 2008, sports might be a good barometer to judge the character of a leader? Just recently in the New York Times, there was a great article about how basketball can tell us an awful lot about presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama:
Last Christmas, Senator Barack Obama flew to Hawaii to contemplate a presidential bid in the peace of his childhood home. But there, on a humid playground near Waikiki Beach, he found himself being roughed up by some of his best friends. It was the third and final game of the group’s annual three-on-three basketball showdown, and with the score nearly tied, things were getting dirty.
“Every time he tried to score, I fouled him,” Martin Nesbitt recalled. “I grabbed him, I’d hit his arm, I’d hold him.” Michael Ramos, another participant, explained, “No blood, no foul.”
Mr. Obama, like everyone else on the court, was laughing. And with a head fake, a bit of contact and a jumper that seemed out of his range, Mr. Obama sank the shot that won the game.
From John F. Kennedy’s sailing to Bill Clinton’s golf mulligans to John Kerry’s windsurfing, sports has been used, correctly or incorrectly, as a personality decoder for presidents and presidential aspirants. So, armchair psychologists and fans of athletic metaphors, take note: Barack Obama is a wily player of pickup basketball, the version of the game with unspoken rules, no referee and lots of elbows. He has been playing since adolescence, on cracked-asphalt playgrounds and at exclusive health clubs, developing a quick offensive style, a left-handed jump shot and relationships that have extended into the political arena...
...It is a theme that runs throughout Mr. Obama’s basketball career: a desire to be perceived as a regular guy despite great advantage and success. As a teenager, he slipped away from his tony school to university courts populated by “gym rats and has-beens” who taught him “that respect came from what you did and not who your daddy was,” Mr. Obama wrote...
...Now, for exercise, Mr. Obama pounds treadmills at hotel gyms. He played a bit last year, with American troops on military bases in Kuwait and Djibouti, and again at Christmas. His staff members laugh when asked if the senator has had any playing time since coming to Washington or hitting the campaign trail. (“I dream of playing basketball,” Mr. Obama said in a television interview on Tuesday.) Before the first Democratic debate in South Carolina, Mr. Robinson reserved a court and a slot on Mr. Obama’s schedule, hoping the candidate could blow off some steam before the big night. It did not happen.
The solution, Mr. Obama’s friends say, is for him to win the presidency, so they can all play together at the White House.
Labels: Athletics, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, George R. Ford, John F. Kennedy, President George W. Bush, Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt
Thursday, May 10, 2007
End of An Era
There is an element of poetic irony in the PM career of Blair: He came into office viewed as a Clinton-like politician who revitalized "New Labor." He leaves tied at the ideological -- and "popularity" -- hip with Clinton's successor George W. Bush, because of Iraq.
On a marginally related note, the man whose swing away a decade ago from the Tories and toward Labor helped usher in the Blair era, explains his plan to make his media company carbon-neutral.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Iraq, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair
Monday, March 05, 2007
"Movement" Politics
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), describing himself as "the offspring of the movement," paid homage Sunday to the civil rights protesters whose violent beatings here at the hands of state troopers and sheriff's deputies 42 years ago sparked national outrage and led to legislation ensuring the voting rights of African Americans throughout the South.It's very early, but "body language" is always important in political campaigns. Polls aside, the body language suggests that Obama, not Hillary Clinton, is setting the tone for this debate. It was Hillary's people who felt the need to "go negative" on Obama over the David Geffen comments (those statements themselves can't be construed as surrogate attack on Clinton -- even that's how her campaign chose to perceive them).
Just a few blocks away, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) claimed the same inheritance, describing the civil rights movement as "the gift that keeps on giving" as it propels new types of politicians onto the national stage. Their simultaneous appearances at the annual commemoration of one of the most famous moments in the civil rights struggle embodied the historic nature of a presidential race in which an African American and a woman lead the Democratic field.
The two presidential candidates spoke at separate Sunday morning services and later joined in the ritual march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, led by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who as a young civil rights leader was beaten on the bridge with other protesters on the morning of March 7, 1965, as they began a voting-rights march to Montgomery.
Clinton marched with her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who came to Selma to be inducted into the National Voting Rights Museum's hall of fame. It was the first time the Clintons appeared together at a major event in the 2008 campaign and an appearance much debated in Hillary Clinton's campaign before it was announced Thursday night.
The result of that action was -- in last week's ABC/Washington Post poll -- blacks jumping from Clinton to Obama.
Now look at the Selma situation: Obama had been invited to give a speech weeks ago -- before he declared his official candidacy. Hillary later angled herself an invitation to give a speech at a nearby church -- and accept an award on behalf of Bill Clinton. Then, the campaign decided to bring the former president along as well.
I think that's a mistake: Not only does Sen. Clinton responding to Obama's moves look like "me-too"-ism, but dragging Bill Clinton along looks like overkill. Worse, Hillary will always suffer in comparison to Bill (as, in fact, do most mortal politicians). Bill is a natural master, whereas Hillary is a diligent student.
The problem Hillary faces is that she may be running against a natural master, someone as charismatic as her husband. Worse, Obama has swiped the "generational change" mantle in which the Clinton-Gore ticket draped itself 15 years ago.
I wonder how well Hillary's attaching herself to the civil rights movement will go over well with black audiences: It's not often remarked but the "bandwagon" jumping that has occurred over the decades since the civil rights movement was launched can be a source of frustration for blacks: First, it was the women's movement, then gays, and now immigrants -- all these groups that utilize much of the language of the civil rights movement, and often with much success.
But, many African-Americans believe -- rightly so -- that their struggle is sui generis. Nothing is quite the same as the history of blacks coming to America in bondage and battling for centuries for their equal rights. That's not to say that those other movements weren't important and didn't have their own unique tragedies and triumphs.
But, it is not the same as the black experience. Furthermore, both for women and some immigrants, arguably a fair bit of economic and social leap-frogging over blacks has occurred.
So, while Hillary Clinton was gracious to note the doors opened by the civil rights movement, but in doing so she may have accidentally raised some associations that might have been better left alone.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, black, Hillary Clinton
Monday, February 19, 2007
Dog Shoots Man
The observations of Ruddy and other veterans of the "Clinton Wars" are another indication why Hillary may not be as "unelectable" as many (including many Democrats) assume.
[Many] other conservative fund-raisers and organizers acknowledge that the grass-roots hatred for Mrs. Clinton and her husband has subsided substantially since they left the White House.If even the fires of her most full-throated fire-breathing enemies of the past have subsided, does this not suggest that a legitimate opening exists for her continue her ongoing "reintroduction" to the broader public?
National efforts to raise money to stop Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns in New York in 2000 and 2006 never got off the ground. Nor did plans to raise money for a “counter-Clinton” library in Little Rock. And conservatives note to their consternation that at the moment the woman they treat as the incarnation of 1960s liberalism appears to be campaigning as the least liberal of the Democratic front-runners.
As an aside, one must wonder if the cooling of some anti-Clinton passions has to do with the contrast between two very different presedencies. Joseph Bottum, editor of the conservative Catholic journal First Things, makes this observation (Hat tip, Andrew Sullivan):
Where [Bill] Clinton seemed a man of enormous political competence and no principle, Bush has been a man of principle and very little political competence. The security concerns after the attacks of September 11 and the general tide of American conservatism carried Republicans through the elections of 2002 and 2004. But by 2006 Bush had squandered his party’s advantages, until even the specter of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House was not enough to keep the Republicans in power.In retrospect, Clinton looks successful because he would make deals with political opponents when he could -- and co-opt their issues and rhetoric at every turn. Frankly, what also made Clinton a good president was that he was forced to deal with an energetic opposition with major oversight powers. While that may have been to the detriment of the country in certain ways, it also forced him to work within specific limits. Even with a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate for 18 months in 2001 and 2002, the legacy of 9/11 gave George W. Bush more unilateral political power than is healthy for any presidency.To abandon Iraq now would be the height of irresponsibility. It would lock in place the perception of defeat, with all the predictable consequences, and it would abandon the Iraqis to whom we promised freedom and democracy. President Bush has clearly done the right thing in refusing retreat and pledging to stay the course in Iraq.
But hasn’t that always been the problem? Again and again, he has done the right thing in the wrong way, until, at last, his wrongness has overwhelmed his rightness. How can conservatives continue to support this man in much of anything he tries to do? Iraq is not America’s failure, and it is not conservatism’s failure. We are where we are because of George W. Bush’s failure.
UPDATE: Christopher Ruddy sends an e-mail:
Some clarifications: I told the Times reporter that, "In terms of domestic policy,Clinton was not a bad president..." -- citingwelfare reform, his cooperation with the GOP in restraining federal spending, etc.
Not mentioned in the article: I also added that I continue to stand behind my reporting about aspects of the Clinton scandals that I reported on during the 90s.Additionally, I noted that Hillary will be a polarizing article -- and that NewsMax Magazine had devoted a recent cover storyto that subject.
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, vast right-wing conspiracy
