Politico: "Kristin Gore on the Clinton White House?" From Kristin Gore's new book...

[flpoljunkie]

Kirstin Gore On The Clinton White House?

09 Jul 2007 10:02 am



Over the weekend, I finished Kristin Gore's new book, Sammy's House.

It's fiction, it's not a roman a clef, but hey, when one of Al Gore's daughters writes a book about a president with an embarassing secret, a herotic, loyal-but-realistic vice president, a dramatic scene where the president denies the charges against him, with the vice president standing stoically behind him, a White House in crisis, talk of impeachment proceedings -- it ain't beanbag.

At one point, vice president Robert Gray (RG for short) asks the protagonist, Sammy, "what would you do if you were me?" "Your partner, your boss, lies to world. And there's no going back. The damage is done. He doesn't give a crap about your reputation, your sacrifices, about your plans for the future.

He only cares about himself. And he's willing to jeopardize everything we've worked for ... for... what?"

At the end, after the president resigns -- yes, this embarassing president had the guts to resign, Gore writes: "The traits for which RG had been previously criticized were now coveted. He was steady and honest and thouhgtful. He wasn't a showman, he didn't do tricks."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/kirstin_gore_on_the_clinton_wh.php

[Totally Committed]

1. (1) It's from Politico, (2) it's fiction, (3) Clinton didn't resign

Not in that White House, anyway.

Sidebar: I wonder where we'd be today if Clinton HAD resigned, and Gore stepped into office for the last couple of years of that Presidency? Anyone else ever wonder about that?

TC

[glitch]

2. All the time. Her fiction sounds a lot better than our reality, even through the politico filter. nt

[shimmergal]

3. Sometimes I wonder, too.

Though even at the time I viewed the impeachment as an attempted coup.

Gore would have been in a commanding position to win re-election in 2000. And probably the 9/11 attack would either have been aborted, or put off till a more complaisant Admin. was in power.

On the other hand, depending on how serious the coup plotters were, he might have been assassinated.

One of history's many imponderables.. .

[merbex]

4. All the time

I often bring it up to fellow Democratswhen we start discussing how we got to this point.

None of us helped campaign for Gore in NH in 2000( we live in MA) during the general election time period; none had ever thought to campaign during a general election- that was only for primary battles.

Or that was what we thought.

I didn't make that mistake again - I went to NH for Kerry in the Fall of 2004 and I am glad to say NH turned blue. I wasn't the only activist to head north to NH from MA during that time period either.

There are a lot of "What ifs" that could while away an evening and Clinton resigning is merely one of the more intriguing what ifs to consider.

It does bother many of my fellow activists who feel, as I do, that Clinton was hounded.

But the fact remains: what if?

[flpoljunkie]

9. Actually, it's from Mark Ambinder's political blog from The Atlantic online. My bad!

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/kirstin_gore_on_the_clinton_wh.php

[sallyseven]

14. NO I do not.

[flpoljunkie]

15. I do. Have more than once wondered what would have happened if Clinton had resigned the presidency

We hoped that he would resign at the time, but--alas, he chose otherwise.

[karynnj]

23. it is Kristin Gore's book. , but this may be a very loaded summary

Now, I would ASSUME, having not seen the book, that the politico book used adjectives and quotes that describe her dad as well as the fictional VP. It doesn't say what the President's problem was - so I suspect it doesn't match.

Has anyone read the book? Kristin Gore grew up as a Senator's and VP's daughter. This is a world that she knows. Using it as a basis for her story is what would be expected.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. We'd be in the same place as we are today, only Bush might've actually won in 2000

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Politicos summary is similar to others I've read.

[cally]

6. Any guesses on who the reporter is similar to?

"There's also a continuing subplot involving New York Times reporter "Chick Wallrey," who "described everything the administration did in the darkest and most cynical terms." She is "short and rotund, with dyed black hair and raccoon eyes courtesy of heavy eyeliner." The press office posits that Wallrey is "deeply unhappy in her personal life" and "bitter towards everyone." I think I have an idea who this is supposed to describe, but I don't want to libel anyone."

[Apollo11]

7. Clinton should have resigned in February 1999

Right after the Senate voted 50-50 on the charge that Clinton was guilty of obstructing justice.

What Clinton did was bad enough. But then trying to cover it up and basically lying about it ... :thumbsdown:

If he had resigned, I honestly believe that we would now be in year 9 of the Gore Presidency.

Just imagine how different things would be today ....

I think that deep down (in private) - this is what Al Gore and his family also believes.

PS - If a VP takes over after the halfway point in a Presidential term, he can still go on to serve 2 full terms as President (so it means the maximum total Presidency would be 10 years).


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Sign the Live Earth Pledge: www.liveearthpledge.org

Then ask all your friends and family to sign it too! :-)

Visit Al's site www.algore.com and read his blog http://blog.algore.com

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[Apollo11]

8. Anyone wants to disagree?

I have had the good luck to work with many young female interns during my career.

I know the rules, and what can happen to people who break them.

What makes Bill Clinton the only boss immune from consequences?

Just because he prayed with Jesse Jackson? :eyes:

By clinging on until the end of his second term, Clinton was being incredibly selfish.

He put his own selfish interests before those of the country and the party.

He handed a bucket-load of valuable ammunition to the GOP.

"I will restore honor and dignity to the office of the President" - George W. Bush, 2000

[Alamom]

10. You're quoting B*sh to make a point about Clinton? They restored

honor and dignity all right. Do you know how many repukes have been investigated, indicted and convicted for real crimes in the last 6 years? And the worst is, the real criminals have not been touched, yet.


I think about... say over 70 % of the people have forgotten that little jewel uttered by the dunce.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Of course Bush was a lying sack of shit, however that doesn't

mitigate the effectiveness of the lie, especially when he had the corporate media camouflaging him and carrying his talking points while simultaneously slandering Al Gore's integrity, this scandal and resultant half truth at best by Clinton, only aided that endeavor. All those repukes being investigated, indicted and convicted happened after the fact.

This in essence is why the moderate to conservative rural reddish states with a smaller margin of opportunity for the Democrats than the blueish states went for Bush. Rove knew they couldn't beat Al Gore on experience, competence or the issues, it had to be about character, this was the Achilles Heel.

[Alamom]

17. I don't believe they actually beat Gore. However, I do believe his

reputation, life, family and Administration would have been as plagued with Repuke hatred, lies, prevention of doing his job and possible underhanded coup attempts as much or more than the Clinton Administration.


The other party did not intend for the Democratic Party to ever "preside" again. They intended to take over and do exactly as they have done. Almost turn this country into a dictatorship. Carter & Clinton upset the apple cart........ They couldn't take a chance with Gore or Kerry, so they stole those.

Gore's integrity would have been walked on, regardless. He was not going to win under any circumstances.

Bush "won" two terms.....you believe that? You think it's due to Bill Clinton's sex life & parsing words in his testimony?

I don't. His approval ratings during and after that "farce" of impeachment proceedings were too high to even think the American public cared about his sex life after almost 8 good years.

Gore won. The election was stolen. It was stolen again in 04. Clinton didn't steal it.
Put the blame where it belongs






edgr

[Uncle Joe]

19. I agree, in that they didn't actually beat Al Gore, however

this was the only way to make the race close enough to steal. It simply wouldn't have made any difference in the overall race as to what Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Ralph Nader, the Butterfly Ballot, the purging of innocent voters in Florida, the Felonious Five or any of their other corrupt machinations with out the corporate media's "War Against Gore", because I'm convinced Al Gore would have won in a landslide.

I can't tell you how many times, I heard from my co-workers what the meaning of the word "is" is and Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet in the same sentence or paragraph. This was fed to them by the corporate media, to the point of brain washing. This scandal and resultant half truth from Clinton only justified in their minds, the Starr Witch Hunt against Clinton and the perception that Al Gore was a liar as well. It was ammunition to be used against Gore on a silver platter.

Today the same corporate media are pushing Clinton/Obama almost exclusively and they focus on gender and race to justify it, with continuous questions as to whether America is ready to elect a woman or African American to the Presidency? They know exactly what they're doing.


The following paragraph is a parody, but it's just a small example of overall coverage and it goes something like this.

This past Friday's "Washington Week in Review" coverage of the race.

Covering the Democrats, there are ten candidates, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Clinton, Obama, Clinton, Obama, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, then they ask what about the second and third tier candidates, Richardson, oxygen being sucked out Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Clinton.

Covering the Republicans there are eight candidates. Mccain, Mccain, maverick, straight shooter, Mccain, Mccain, Mccain, Mccain, Mccain.

If any other names were mentioned during that program, I missed them. I can't help but wonder what's driving this race, and I keep coming back to the same corporate media that enabled Bush to power.

[karynnj]

25. His job approval was, but his favorability wasn't

I think the latter has risen since he has been out of office.

[karynnj]

24. That is not the point

As said in that post, they gave the Republicans ammunition. Bush, of course did not bring either honor or dignity back to the White House, but that slogan likely got him close enough to steal the election.

Had that sorry episode not happened, there is no way Bush with his history could have used that slogan against Gore of all people.

That episode really embarrassed many people and I have no idea when it will go away. How many here think that if Hillary gets the nomination, a never before heard from Lewinsky friend, family member, associate (or Monica herself) will not write a book - non-fiction or fiction and put it out in June or July 2008 - bringing up thi whole sordid mess again? (Remember the first impulse of the press in July 2004 when Clinton, a two term President, put out his book. The pundits didn't look in the index to find what he thought of Ehud Barack, they looked for Monica,)

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I disagree 100%

Clinton's approval rating went up from 60% to 70% when the Republicans started talking about impeachment. He was seen as sleazy by the public but they approved of the job that he was doing and despised the Republicans for trying to remove him when he was presiding over eight years of peace and prosperity.

The fact that Gore did win in 2000 was partly because of the 8 yeas of peace and prosperity under Clinton. If Clinton had resigned he would've been saying "My lying about sex is more important than 8 years of peace and prosperity." The fact that Gore didn't get inaugurated was due to the fact that he didn't do more to play up the eight years of peace and prosperity. When Bush said "I want to restore integrity to the White House" Gore should've responded "Bush wants to restore the horrible economy that we had when his father was President."

[AZBlue]

20. The American people didn't care about Clinton's sex life. Only the media and the GOP did.

Unfortunately, those two entities took charge and ran with it and the American people didn't stop them.

[AlGore-08.com]

22. But in 2000 Clinton was polling 60% "Dislike as a person"

In Swing States and in the South, his "Dislike As A Person" numbers were higher. That meant one hell of a lot during an election when voters were judging candidates on "likability" and who they wanted to have a beer with.

Rove's stated strategy in 2000 was to have people "see Clinton when they hear Gore". Even in the 2004 election, the Kerry campaign publicly stated they were having trouble figuring out how to use Clinton in a way that would win more Swing State votes than it lost.

And anybody who still thinks that an official's extra martial affairs have no effect on the voters should watch Senator Vitter for the next few months. He's going to go down in flames because he's been outed has having hired a prostitute. And we're all going to bring it up every chance we get to "prove" the Republicans are hypocrites with no morals.

[Apollo11]

21. Touché !!

Hippo said: If Clinton had resigned he would've been saying "My lying about sex is more important than 8 years of peace and prosperity."

Not necessarily. In fact - not at all.

When convincted of a crime, is a felon allowed to say: "OK - but on the other hand, I'm a good dad to my kids - and that kind of outweighs whatever crime I might have committed."

In most cases - the judge will not buy that argument. He will tell the felon: "well you have been found guilty of this crime, so you will have to pay the price."

If Clinton had resigned in February 1999, he would have been saying "I know what I did was wrong, and I know that it has seriously damaged my reputation and the standing of my administration. So I think it would be in the best interests of the country for me to stand aside and for my excellent VP to take over the steering wheel."

My thinking is: better 10 years of President Gore than 8 years of Bu$h-Cheney.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Clinton commited no crime, lying about sex is not a crime

Clinton is a lawyer and knew exactly how to avoid perjury. When he was under oath he toyed with the meaning of the word "is" and he used the legal definition of sexual relations which is sexual intercourse. Is it sleazy? Absolutely. Is it a crime? Nope.

He lied to the American People about his affairs but not to the grand jury. He didn't think that was a good reason to resign and 70% of the American People didn't think so either.

Clinton's resignation would've vindicated the Republicans instead of making them lose a lot of credibility for calling for his resignation and ultimately impeaching him. Gore would've lost in a landslide in 2000 because he would've had all of the negative effects of Clinton's antics and the Republicans wouldn't have had any of the negative effects of over-reacting to Clinton's antics.

[Apollo11]

29. I'm not saying it was a crime, necessarily

I am saying it was a reason for Clinton to consider resigning.

My little story about the judge was a metaphor, Hippo.

(notice how I used your name - instead of "d*mb*ss")

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Sure it was reason to consider resigning, but...

Ultimately resigning was not a good idea, for the political reasons stated above. Clinton's only judge was the American People and 70% of them said that he shouldn't resign.

Yes it would've been better for Gore if Clinton had kept his pants on or if he had at least been forthright about it. But his resignation would've been perhaps the worst possible thing for Gore going into the 2000 election.

And I don't think I ever called you a dumbass. I don't call people names just because I disagree with them.

[Apollo11]

34. I respectfully disagree

Of course I believe that Al did in fact win the 2000 election. The only problem was that unfortunately it was close enough for the GOP to steal Florida and reap the rewards (with the help of SCOTUS).

If Al Gore had already established himself as President over a period of 18 to 20 months - I think that would have put him in a much stronger position to demolish GWB in November 2000.

Maybe you think that Al Gore would be such a useless President, that after 20 months most people would have had enough?

[Hippo_Tron]

37. I think Gore would've been unable to govern for those 20 months...

Congress simply would not have let him pass much of anything, claiming that he was an un-elected President with no mandate. It would have been very similar to Gerald Ford's Presidency. With no legislative accomplishments, Gore would have had a very difficult time winning in 2000.

I'm also not saying that Gore was not a strong enough candidate to have won an election based on his own merits or that he would not have been a great President. But by accepting the Vice Presidency in 1992, Gore knew that when it was his turn to run his fate would largely be tied to what Bill Clinton did in office. If the end of the Clinton legacy had been disgraced President resigns, Gore would have been through as well. But the end of the Clinton legacy was that while Clinton was discredited personally, he fought back, made his opponents look ridiculous, and left office with extremely high approval ratings.

Gore did win in 2000, but if Clinton had resigned he would not have. However, I'm not arguing that Gore's victory in 2000 was only because of Bill Clinton. Gore was behind by double digits until the Democratic National Convention, and he was able to tie the race up almost overnight by re-focusing the debate on the issues that mattered and not on Bush's "I'll restore integrity to the White House" bullshit. That jump in the polls was Gore's doing and shows his skill as a politician.

[Samantha]

33. In everyday life, what Clinton did was sleazy as you say BUT

in a court of law, Clinton's job was to answer every question truthfully or face perjury charges (and possibly obstruction of justice charges).

In that one instance, the definition of "sex" had literally been defined by the prosecutors and the Judge had sanctioned the court-defined meaning of sex. Yes, Clinton is an attorney. When he read the "definitions" drawing the parameters of what constituted sex within the context of his upcoming testimony, he studied intently the definitions handed to him on cards. Within those definitions, sex was defined as different parts of his physical anatomy touching physical parts of his partner's anatomy (and vice versa). What was egregiously omitted within those definitions was the possibility of his partner's mouth touching his private parts (specifically, ORAL SEX). Oral sex, not literal intercourse, was unbelievably not in the definitive cards. So, when sworn under oath, Clinton was asked if he had had "sex" with Monica Lewinsky, the literal truth as defined by the prosecutors themselves, outlining the definition of sex as all forms of intercourse exclusive of oral sex, was unquestionably "no." That was the Paula Jones case, in which the rumors of an affair with an intern surfaced. Clinton did not have sex with that woman as defined by the court which subpoenaed his testimony. It was a prosecutorial error -- and a fatal one at that -- but not a Clinton lie (or perjury) as defined by the Court.

When Clinton was later subpoenaed to testify again on that earlier testimony, he stuck to his original position because not to have done so would have painted himself as a liar. He continued in his latter testimony to refer back to the facts (and definitions) of the earlier case because there was simply no other logical or legal recourse.

It's a small but critical point in the discussion of those times which is rarely held up to the light. Clinton did not lie because the framers of the original question missed the opportunity in defining sex to include that type of sex which Clinton had in fact experienced, oral sex. And that's why that qualifier he included in his words, "That depends on what your definition of sex is ...." was not a frivolous remark, as it sounded at the time. One's answer to that question, what is your definition of sex, legally, truthfully and grammatically, precisely elicited the accurate legal answer, not our everyday common sense answer.

Simply because Clinton's answer was not the answer the prosecutors hoped to get does not mean he lied. It meant they, if you will pardon the express, screwed up in defining sex.

[Apollo11]

35. Are you one of Clinton's lawyers?

50 out of 100 Senators voted that Clinton was most likely guilty of obstructing justice.

That's quite a serious collapse of confidence in the President's credibility.

Definitely time to think about maybe handing over to your excellent VP.

[karynnj]

36. You can read the Democrts' statements as well -

several of them accepted the charges as well then gave reasons why it did not raise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors -

There were other questions - such as whether they were alone where he lied.

[Samantha]

38. Do you have anything besides sarcasm to buttress your point?

A "definite collapse of confidence" does not equate to a guilty verdict in a legal proceeding; in a highly-charged political environment such as Washington, DC, it is often read as simply wanting to overturn the results of an election by whatever means are necessary.

I followed the Paula Jones trial and read the information for myself regarding the definition of "sex" as outlined by the prosecutor. Go do your homework on the facts before you make such assertions. Additionally, following the conclusion of this whole disgusting matter, lawyers went back to that same court and tried to get Clinton disbarred for perjury and obstruction of justice. The judge, although chagrined about the mis-direction in which Clinton's words had led them, had no evidence on which to take Clinton's license to practice law because he had in fact not lied, or perjured himself, in her court. The mistake, and I will repeat this again, was made by those who defined "sex" for purposes of Clinton's testimony.

After his subsequent testimony before the Congress, which I videotaped and watched in its entirety, I immediately went to one of the best lawyers in Washington, D.C. and asked his professional opinion about whether Clinton lied. I personally appeared at his office and directly asked him this question. His response was that Clinton had walked a very fine line. "Walking a very fine line" does not legally count as "crossing over" the line. Due to the fact Clinton was impeached for these two charges BUT NOT CONVICTED tells any thinking person the burden of proof was not met.

Quite frankly, I am thoroughly willing to take that highly-successful litigator's interpretation of the testimony Clinton gave over yours. He is a Republican who voted for Bush*.

You need to bring more to your arguments here at DU than sarcasm to buttress your assertions. Many of us do our own homework on the issues, and we are more inclined to take the literal facts into account when forming our opinions than the factually-unsupported, unresearched opinions of some we encounter here.

Do not look for any further response from me on this subject. I am done with this thread.

[CBHagman]

11. Kristin Gore already told The Washington Post...

...that this is not a roman a clef. The letter appeared in Book World yesterday.

On edit: Here's an excerpt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070501861.html

While I thank Patrick Anderson for some of his remarks on Sammy's House (Book World, Style, July 2), I must correct his mistaken assertion that any part of my new novel "can only be read as an angry, down-and-dirty roman à clef in which President Wye and Vice President Gary stand in for President Clinton and Vice President Gore." It would be difficult for this to be less true. In actuality, Sammy's House can and should be read as an entirely fictional comedy set in a fascinating political world.

Take it from me, I really love making things up, which is why I write fiction for a living. I'd rather give myself a thousand paper cuts than write a thinly veiled roman à clef. For this reason, what I've actually done -- despite Mr. Anderson's faulty characterization -- is much more creatively interesting to me: I've written a novel.

[flpoljunkie]

13. The Washington Post expected otherwise? Just coincidence. Nothing here. Move on.

[Apollo11]

16. Plausible deniability

Of course the book can be read as a comment on the events of 1998 and 1999.

Of course the author is going to deny that her novel is "about" her dad and President Clinton.

For me the similarity to historical events it too close to be simply a "coincidence".

But then I am used to dealing with real people in the real world.

[jmp]

26. Sounds like she has a bad case of

Hero daddy worship.

"And he's willing to jeopardize everything we've worked for ..."

We? What did Al do besides join the winning team? Gore is exactly what some say Hillary is ... a hanger on. A coattail rider.

The man even managed to botch the baton pass in the 2000 election against maybe the dumbest man ever put forth by either party.

[Apollo11]

30. Al Gore is "a hanger on"" ??

I could come up with some descriptions of Bill and Hillary that you might not like.

But I won't waste my fingers ...

[Lord Helmet]

28. it's fiction

[Apollo11]

31. and fiction never draws on reality?

Do you believe that people who write novels never draw on their own experiences and observations for inspiration?

And I suppose in your world, "Primary Colors" bears absolutely zero relation to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

[Lord Helmet]

39. the point is you seem to have missed is that fiction is not reality.

It may resemble reality in some aspects which I guess makes some people like you feel ok about stating
the author's intention, but since the author already clarified that it IS fiction,
I'm content "in my world" with her explanation. Yours is just hot air here at DU.

[Md.Mom]

40. V.P. Robert Gray's character traits (a la Kristin Gore)

"The traits for which RG had been previously criticized
were now coveted.  He was steady and honest and thoughtful. 
He wasn't a showman, he didn't do tricks."

This makes Al Gore the Fitzwilliam Darcy of 21st Century
American Politics.  That explains his appeal! 

Would Jane Austen approve? :think: 

[Lisa]

41. I liked this sequel better than the first book ...

I think Gore's gotten more experienced as a writer. Not as repetitive, and her character has matured too. I finished reading "Sammy's House" last night, and there are a few places where some factual bits (or at least some interesting coincidences) appear -- the fictional dad being almost exactly the same age as Al Gore even though he isn't in politics, the family having a farm (though in real life it was beef cattle and not dairy), and also the issue of "junk science" in connection with global warming deniers shows up a couple of times. There are even a few hints like a reference to the "wholphin" (which is also the name of the DVD series that released a rather good short film about family life with the Gores). No surprise that "RG", the fictional Vice President, discusses issues that the real Gore has mentioned (the bit about the difficulties of governing when it's only the really difficult problems that reach the President's desk, since the easier stuff has already been solved ... and it's never just one thing at a time ... I think Gore spoke at length about this, either in the New Yorker or Rolling Stone, in 2000).

Kristin appears to have split her parents into two sets of characters (the VP and his wife, and Sammy's endearingly eccentric mom and dad). No siblings (which admittedly would have complicated matters).

Personally I think that even though the first book is supposedly in development as a movie, the second book might actually be a better film. Better character development, in my opinion, and the storyline (various plots about a troubled presidency, and trying to figure out the puzzle of the mysterious news leaks) has more suspense. Maybe they could get Aaron Sorkin to direct!

As a Canadian, I did appreciate how she worked us into the international incident (not too implausible either) -- though my only quibble would be that our leader is the Prime Minister (just "Minister" is reserved for cabinet members) and that we have not just one, but several opposition parties (at least two of which would have been expected to criticize that deal in Parliament). Liked the touch of having a First Lady who was born in Toronto!

p.s. like most other authors, she mixes fact, extrapolation, and outright speculation. So just because some bits are true doesn't mean that the whole book has to be. It's entertaining to imagine who the various (higher-profile) characters might represent -- in some cases I'm suspecting that she might have assigned a new name with the same initial, or chosen one with an oblique reference. And as for "President Pile" -- not much doubt who he's based on (the "heh, heh, heh" is a giveaway) -- and he's just as irritating as his name would suggest. Likely there are composites involved -- CNN watchers will probably recognize the flashy medical correspondent and the handsome anchor, though I don't think the latter would have asked Sammy out in real life.