Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:16 AM
Original message
Clinton, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Well, almost. I am 750 pages deep into this monster and a few things keep leaping out at me, confirming what I suspected about you all along. When you first announced your candidacy for pres and the attacks began immediately, your enemies were a lot like the parable of the blind men who went to "look" at the elephant: each of them grasped one aspect of you, but none of them had the whole picture. Now, I'm not sure if anybody, including YOU, has the whole picture!

Damn, Bill. You are a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction, taking every wrong direction on your lonely way back home. In hindsight, it's amazing that somebody as complex as you could ever be elected; musta been that Elvis aura that you wear so well.

You write pretty good for a hillbilly. Your voice comes right through the pages and you have--as close as you are able--told everything (and I do mean everything ) about your journey in what I have read so far.

Never mind that bu$h couldn't write a paragraph, but with every page I turn, the contrasts between you and him get more glaring. It became obvious from the first few pages that you have learned something from every experience in your life. Your mind will be active months after your body goes into the ground; there's no telling how high your IQ is!

I have read chapter upon chapter about your struggles with your enemies and your demons, but one thing keeps bugging me.

It was in the early fall of 1988, on one of those days when you'd come to the Arkansas Radio Network studios to record your weekly Governor's Address. I was your engineer on those sessions. You were always late. Always. But it was worth the wait just to watch the reaction of the girl at the front desk when you finally did get there! That young woman wanted you so bad, Bill. And she was NOT alone!

That day, you were highly pissed off at Michael Dukakis because he wouldn't fight back against the smears and spears and feces that the Republicans were flinging at him. Then--not five years later--they began throwing worse shit at you. And I'll be god-damned if it didn't look like you were behaving just like Dukakis!

Now, sixteen years and 750 pages later, I am still confused. Hell's Bells, man! You learned a little bit about gutter politics when you were Governor, did you not? And yet you NEVER fought back to amount to anything against people like Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole (how the HELL could you say you like that doddering and spiteful old bastard??), Kenneth Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife. Fuck's sake, Bill! You should have taken the gloves off from day one. You should have made a bloody example of the first motherfucker that DARED to cross you--but you chose not to.

Having overheard a conversation between you and Mike Gauldin about the girl at the front desk (the one who eerily resembled Monica Lewinsky), it was obvious that you had an eye--and other organs--for the ladies. Maybe that was what made you so reticent about fighting back: the thought that there was always more Sex Dirt that your opponents could find and use against you.

But that never stopped Newt Gingrich. Shoot, his hands were WAY dirtier than yours, yet he attacked you viciously at every opportunity. Go figure.

Well, that's about it for now, Bill. Your book leaves me with at least as many questions now as before I began reading it.

One piece of advice, though. You need to shut the fuck UP about moving the Democratic party toward the center. Look where that has landed us in 2004! It might have worked for a Sex God like you, but it ain't working worth a damn for anybody with an ounce less charisma--which is pretty much everybody else.

Your Fellow Arkie,

:hi:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bill Clinton
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 09:21 AM by cornermouse
I miss his personality in the White House.
I miss his brains and his policies.
I miss the sanity that we used to have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Centrists and the DLC... Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry...
If there was no Perot, then Poppy Bush would have won in 1992 and that Viagra peddling duncel Dole in 1996.

We need another Perot. But one who can get enough from both sides to WIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. ZERO evidence of what you claim
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 09:41 AM by wyldwolf
Ross Perot Did Not Cost George Bush The 1992 Presidential Election.

First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

more...

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've never understood why Clinton didn't destroy
his enemies. At least, he could have made the 'media' face repercussions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Him and what army?
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 10:46 AM by K-W
I love how everyone seems to think that Democrats have these magical powers to destroy republicans that they just dont use. The Democrats cant do what the republicans do. They dont have the tools, they dont have the support, and they have a constituency that holds them accountible for lying.

What exactly could clinton have done to desroy anyone? After the republican takeover in congress, Clinton had very little political clout in washington. He didnt have connections to any propaganda. The media had already been corrupted.

Bill Clinton would have succeeded only in looking defensive and giving his enemies more ammunition. Had Bill Clinton been able to run in 2000, I think he would have beaten George W. Bush, so Im really not sure you can say he made any mistakes. He survived a withchunt and was still very popular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. For the media...access
Clinton could have played the * game with the media. No info if you report unfavorably. No 'leaks', no administration interviews, and no background information. Clinton didn't do that and I don't understand why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Clinton could NOT have done the same things as Bush with the media.
You need to put two and two together here. I assume you are at least partially aware of the the fact that much of our media is literally operated by right wing political operatives and that the mainstream media through corporate pressure, pressure from the right wing media, and program of message maniulation has become at best useless and at worst an outright tool for the right.

This all started before Clinton, and during the Clinton years the Righ was refining thier control over information.

Clinton was under attack and on the defensive. The republicans would have liked nothing better than for clinton to retreat and shut out the press. Then they would have had 100% control of the message rather than only 80%

Clinton did the exact right thing. He tried to stay presidential, and the nation appreciated that and SUPPORTED HIM.

Why are you all acting like Clinton failed? He had impeachment charges brought against him and left office as a fairly popular president.

The right wing had congress, the media, and everything that would eventually cream al gore, and Clinton beat them. The impeachment failed dramatically and Clinton left office 8 years after he entered as a popular democrat who had put an 8 year hold on the reaganites plans.

Clinton did fine. The way you respond to attacks in a campaign is VERY different than the way a sitting president responds to attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. You make some good points, K-W.
I am QUITE aware of the right-wing tendencies of the alleged media, having been employed therein since 1971. I have watched it fall of its own free will.

I have been putting two and two together for thirty-plus years now. Somehow it's coming up a little askew...

Clinton either needed to lay off Dukakis or put his money where his mouth was!

:hi:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. You cant compare campaign strategy with the strategy of a president.
They two are completely different political contexts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. May I be the first to commend you on your Patton reference!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Thank you, Forkboy!
If only Clinton could be the Patriot that Rommel tried to be!

:hi:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. Splendid post :-D n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
8. I have my issues with the Magnificent Bastard...
but I would give just about anything to have had him running this country for the past four ... and the next four years. *sigh*

Very nice essay, btw. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. As my son says, FOR REAL!
Thank you, Misunderestimator!

:hi:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Id rather he had a tv show or something.
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 11:18 AM by K-W
He was way too diplomatic in office for me and let the right walk all over him on policy.

I just want a little dose of Clinton speechifying every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amazona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. hmmm
each of them grasped one aspect of you, but none of them had the whole picture. Now, I'm not sure if anybody, including YOU, has the whole picture!


I think you could say that about any human being on this earth.

Interesting book review though. I appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thank you, amazona.
I appreciate your response!

:hi:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
18. too see why the dem party is out of power, you neen look no farther
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 11:39 AM by KG
than bill clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC