Vanity Fair: Time to face an inconvenient truth: Bill Clinton is running for a third term.

[babylonsister]

Bruce Feirstein: Bill Clinton, Nasty Man

Bruce Feirstein
Time to face an inconvenient truth: Bill Clinton is running for a third term.

Back in the days when high schools offered courses in civics, one of the things that was drilled into us was the difference between “de facto” and “de jure” segregation.

De jure was that which was mandated by law.

And de facto was that which existed in reality.

In watching Bill Clinton’s latest mini-meltdown on CNN—set off by a reporter asking him to comment on a complaint by the former head of the South Carolina Democratic party that the 42nd president was engaging in the “politics of deception” used by the late (and much reviled) Republican strategist Lee Atwater—Clinton’s response offered an unusual lens into the powder-keg that is our former commander-in-chief: Starting with an almost jocular dismissal of the accusation, he then proceeded to wind himself up into a finger-pointing fury, attacking Barack Obama, painting himself as the victim, and generally blaming the press for everything, before walking away with the taunt, “Shame on you.”

It was not, well, presidential.

By now, we’ve all seen the Clinton ground game in South Carolina and can pretty much map out the dance steps: Anticipating a loss, Hillary scoots out of town; her minions start downplaying the importance of the contest (at least until they get called on it, and have to unwind the spin), while Bill trots around South Carolina like some kind of thuggish company hit-man, attacking Obama’s character, provoking him on race, dissembling about his record, and attempting to diminish—and dismiss—the appeal of Obama’s candidacy by predicting that he’ll win because of the black vote. Ergo, he’s a single-constituency candidate. And the goal is to triangulate him into oblivion.

It’s the same old Clinton game, over and over: The Iowa caucuses were important until they weren’t; South Carolina was key until they were going to lose. There is no yesterday that can’t be rewritten; there is no consideration about the blowback from all this tomorrow. The only thing that matters is winning, or appearing to win, at no matter what cost, today.

For me, the most damning part of this week’s mini-meltdown wasn’t the lecture about the media being at fault for everything, or even the seemingly offhanded, passive-aggressive swipe that “When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word. And I don’t care about it today. I’m not upset about it.” Because, for me, the really damning thing was a series of sentences he uttered just before the Punjab remark, referring to complaints about the Clinton campaign in Nevada:

“It’s okay. And we’re not hung up about it. And we won anyway. We fought hard. And we won.”

In other words, We are running for president. Not Hillary. Not the junior senator from New York. But We—Bill and Hillary—in a de facto end-run around the 22nd Amendment.

Watching the Democrats debate in South Carolina, I was struck by the heated “I’m here. He’s not” exchange between Senators Obama and Clinton because it so perfectly encapsulates the problem with the two Clintons: Bill is out there with a shiv—presumably with the full countenance of his wife—while Hillary deftly manages to avoid being held accountable for him, or taking any responsibility herself. And therein lies my real issue, should this hydra-headed candidacy succeed: Bill Clinton will always be there. He’ll always be larger than life. And, if the last few weeks have demonstrated anything, we’ll never know who’s really calling the shots.

more...

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/01/bruce-feirste-1.html

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. I knew it. I knew it. Think he figured that out a long time ago and

Hillary was his ticket back in the WH ! He's been going so way beyond spousal support -- you can tell it's just too damn personal to him.

[TwilightGardener]

2. "De Facto end-run around the 22nd amendment"--yep. So, so tired of these people

and their desperate grasp for power. Make them go away.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Wretched, freeperish garbage.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Spot-on true. Hits a nerve, perhaps.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Yes, it hits a nerve when a poster to an allegedly Democratic site posts

wretched, freeperish garbage. But it's not at all surprising when a fan of a wretched, freeperish candidate laps it up.

[Inuca]

15. Wretched may be in the eye of the beholder

but can you elaborate on the freeperish part?

[babylonsister]

5. Yes, Vanity Fair is full of freeper writers!

:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

8. Does the name Christopher Hitchens ring a bell? He's their ace writer.

He's also a freeper, Ace.

[babylonsister]

11. Oooh, you got me. One for you! My head is sagging in shame. He's

a great writer FWIW, though I agree, he's looney tunes most of the time. I stand corrected.

[still_one]

22. hitchens is a drunk, who usually takes positions of the extreme left wing

When he jumped on the bush bandwagon, especially in regard to the Iraq invasion, I realized that all those years of booze finally were affecting him

Most of hitchens issues are to inflame, not create an intelligent dialog

I don't think I would classify him as a freeper, a wacko yes, but not freeper. Of course, it can be argued that freepers are wackos also, but in my point of view it is a different type of wacko

[Raster]

38. hitchens, the "drink-sotted popinjay"--does occasionally write for Vanity Fair

but is by no means their "ace writer." I've ready Vanity Fair for years, and they were the first--and at times the ONLY--national magazine to call cheney*/bush* on their bullshit. Obviously you are not that familiar with Vanity Fair, or you would have never made the "freeper" accusation. That said...

I am no freeper, and quite frankly, find Bill Clinton's conduct sorely lacking and certainly not befitting his reputation as elder statesman, to say the least. And to say so is not betraying the Democratic Party, but expressing my opinion. And since this is still a democracy, I am allowed to have one.

[still_one]

6. Its an opinion that resulted from the actions of Bill Clinton himself

It is not only this opinion, you have had Kennedy and Leahey telling Bill Clinton to cool it, and making similar types of remarks

[Windy]

10. You have an Edwards photo up and you make this comment?

Your candidate has been hurt by this as much as anyone else. He has been marginalized and pushed to the side as a result. If Edwards was the candidate in Bill and Hillary's way, those pregnant girlfriend stories would continue to come up and worse. Open you eyes. See these people for what they are!

[Jim Sagle]

14. Edwards would smash Clinton one on one. YOU wise up.

Clinton can't hurt Edwards, our RNC media can.

[Inuca]

17. Time to wake up

and I mean it in a friendly way, really.

[Windy]

18. They've done a pretty fine job of keeping him irrelevant. John is a good candidate

and if he was in front, the clintons would use every dirty trick they could find to destroy him too.

Have you not been paying attention?

[Windy]

7. A very succint and correct analysis of the sad situation the dem party finds itself in.

I hope the electorate shows themselves to be smarter than the manipulation they have been subjected to by the power-hungry clintons over the course of the remainder of the primaries. Our democracy continues to be jeopardy. Only we the people can correct this drift in rudder and bring this election cyle and this country back on course. The way to send the right signal is to pay attention, think for yourself, and get out there and vote your conscious.

the dems have a real shot of blowing an election that all were sure they would have in the bag. If it has truly been a primary of "let the best man or woman win", we would have been unbeatable in the general. Now, the tone has been set and we could see a polarized general election with independents going over to the republicans and thrid party candidates coming into play because of the selfish power driven Clintons.

If this is what happens, we deserve what we get. At least another 4 years of repubs, or a return to the Clintons and 4 more years of bickering and stonewalling on capital hill and the potential loss of seats in the house and senate.

[Big Blue Marble]

20. Very thoughful post.

You have expressed my thoughts and feelings so well. What has our country become that
candidates llke Bush and the Clintons can run these ugly campaigns and be successful?

Where is the wisdom of our voters?

I fear for our democracy very deeply.

[MH1]

9. "We'll never know who's calling the shots"

Exactly.

My other big problem with Hillary is that I think at some point she and Bill are going to differ on the correct handling of a situation. Then what happens when she pulls rank on him? It could be interesting for a TV show but I'm not comfortable with that playing out in the White House.

[Inuca]

13. These two sentences

"There is no yesterday that can’t be rewritten; there is no consideration about the blowback from all this tomorrow. The only thing that matters is winning, or appearing to win, at no matter what cost, today."

Especially the part that I bolded. They are excellent at political tactics (I am not talking about the ethics, etc., just the effectiveness from their perspective), not so much at STRATEGY. Short vs. long term. There are examples from what happened during the Clinton years, but specifically about what is happening now, I am shocked that they do not think and see how this is likely to play in the GE. They want to win the WH afterall, not just the nomination. The examples of the profound likely/possible (I do not know which) implications are so many: losing a significant percentage of the AA vote, "straight talk express" McCain being contrasted with "Clinton is lying" quotes, not so subtle insinuations about a non-constitutional 3rd term or about a CIC hiding behind ger husband's bark, etc. etc. January has been ab incredibly frustrating and scary month :-(.

[Frances]

16. Obama dissed Bill Clinton unfairly and unnecessarily

in his comments about Reagan and the Republican party. Then he had a surrogate in South Carolina claim that Bill Clinton is like Lee Atwater.

Reagan succeeded in laying the groundwork for undoing FDR's programs for making the middle class strong. Reagan persuaded people that private corporations were better than the federal government at providing services and a secure retirement. Reagan did everything he could to break the power of the union and thus corporate pensions. Reagan also ran up deficits so that social security was endangered. Remember, it was the huge corporation GE that rescued Reagan when Reagan's acting career failed. GE hired Reagan to give speeches for them; that's where Reagan got his corporate ideas and honed his skills in promoting them.

Bill Clinton did his best to undo Reagan's damage. Clinton was pro-union. When Clinton left office, there was a surplus, which made social securtiy more secure.

Also, Bill Clinton won without the Southern white male vote, which Lee Atwater had cornered for the Repubs.

Now, Bill Clinton has been drawn into a fight where he defends his record against what I consider distortions.

So, yes there is a contest between Obama and Bill Clinton, but it's a contest over Bill Clinton's record.

I think Obama has hurt our chances in the general tremendously by baiting Bill Clinton.

If Obama had conceded that Bill Clinton accomplished some good things in his administration, then this contest would be between Obama and Hillary.

Right now, I think Obama and Bill Clinton have both showed a lack of good judgment and I am now leaning Hillary or Edwards.

But I will still vote for Obama in the general if he wins because he's better than any of the declared Repubs.

[Windy]

21. Boy, you bought it all hook line and sinker didnt you.

Obama's comments about Reagan, etc were unfair?
Yes there is a contest between BILL and Obama?

These kind of comments really frighten me. How easily people are conditioned.

[Frances]

25. I read the whole interview

and I arrived at my conclusion on my own.

When Obama talked about how government had grown and grown without accountablility, he was making the same argument that Reagan made. That was the argument that got us the corrupt, incompetent, no-bid contracts with Halliburton and other corporations that then made huge contributions to the Republicans.

When Obama talked about the need for personal responsibility, that was the same argument that Reagan made that was then used to put down social security.

I love great speeches. Obama makes speeches in the tradition of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Those speeches lift us up but they may or may not be followed up with FDR actions.

All I am saying is that Obama did not have to echo the arguments that Reagan made in that interview. He did not have to mention Bill Clinton's name.

In my opinion, Obama poked a stick into a hornet's nest and the ensuing arguments hurt our party.

I also think Obama has demonstrated that he is not a uniter.

I predict that the DUers who will be most vocal in their criticims of Obama if he is elected president are those DUers who are most strongly defending him now.

Again, I will vote for Obama if he wins the primaries, but I think he will govern as a conservative Democrat.

[babylonsister]

23. "but it's a contest over Bill Clinton's record." Don't you see how pathetic

this is? Why is Bill getting so much attention? He's loving it but it is hurting our party in the process. And Hillary is getting lost in the shuffle. Who IS running for president? Many of us wonder.

[MBS]

19. thanks for this

always nice to see someone talking sense. I'm with Feirstein on this sorry situation.

[UALRBSofL]

26. The Reality

The reality is all candidates have there spouse out campaigning for them. What the media has done, told the american public, "Hillary can't have Bill campaigning because he's an X president". I disagree with this. The fact that Bill flat out told Yellin, the CNN commentator, all you folks want is a scandle to make the headlines. Said to Yellin, you people in the media don't care about what's important for americans, you just want a headline. This is important because the truth is, that's about all we hear from the news media. Rarely do we hear the media talking about issues that are hurting americans, we mostly hear about disagreements or supposed arguments between candidates. The media loves to play on peoples emotions and people play into it instead of using critical thinking to muddle through all the distortion to get to the truth. The news media's main main priority is alleged scandles and anything else like issues for americans take a back seat.

[havocmom]

24. Seems HRC has always wanted the title First Woman President

and I see no fault in that. I do see fault with the unspoken end of the title, born out by actions from her campaign (including Bill's ) : at any cost, by any means. That is how HRC looks to me more and more.

Bill's behavior has been nasty and shameful. But he wants to be President again? Meh, not convinced on that one. Seems more likely working to get Hillary in is just part of their bargain with each other. Her input and skills may well have been the difference between his win and a near miss. She is smart and savvy. She is not the best front for her own campaign though, there is just something missing.

Every four years, Ralph Nader seems to just come unhinged that the world is marching off without him having a big role leading the parade and he acts up to get attention. Sadly, Bill is looking like he suffers the Nader malady.

When Obama made remarks which sort picked a generational fight, it seemed he brought out the beast in Bill. Sure, Bill wants to help his wife. He probably does owe her and it may have been part of the deal, but he really seemed to froth up when the generational thing was brought up.

Tragically, Bill in HRC's campaign (if she is our nominee) will galvanize the GOP base to come out and vote much more than ANY of the GOP candidates could do on their own. That portion of the population which will show up, if only for the chance to vote against the NAME Clinton could be enough to put things close enough for the GOP to pull off yet another stolen election.

Bill is not helping the Democratic Party with his actions. THAT speaks volumes.

[UALRBSofL]

27. Scare Tactics

Reality is the republicans love using scare tactics to play on peoples emotions. They want you to believe they will come out in mass when in reality it's just a few talking heads that don't want Hillary in office and use these threats to feed off democrats. Truth is, after a dismal 8 years of a borrow and spend president, a no-win occupation of the middle east, people would elect Hannah Montana just to get Bush43 out of office.

[havocmom]

30. Speaking of Montana, it is not talking heads I hear hatred of all things Clinton from

It is damned near every voter (GOP or DEM) in this part of the heartland. And before you dismiss Montana as some Red Hell, let me point out we have a DEM governor who has really taken it to D.C. (and is currently leading other governors in fighting for environment and against the Real I.D. crap), two DEM Senators and we passes a Medical Marijuana law.

It is not just talking heads that hate Clinton beyond reason. Don't fool yourself. NOTHING will get out the GOP vote (and lose a lot of Independents) so much as that name on a ballot. Yeah, it is fucking stupid that people would be that emotional, but it is how too many operate.

[Frances]

28. Agree, that Bill's emotional response is hurting Dems

Obama's dissing of Bill and my generation's contributions to the country also hurt our party.

Attacking, however subtly, those Dems who defended against greed and corruption and racism was not a smart move in my opinion.

And yes I read the whole interview.

But I'm still a Dem.

As I said earlier, I think the DUers who are most anti-Hillary and Bill will be the ones most disappointed with Obama if Obama wins the Presidency.

I think I will be happy that Mitt or Huckabee or Rudy or McCain is not the President.

[havocmom]

29. Yep, Obama's veiled attack on the Clintons by dis-ing the Boomers was BIG mistake

As a boomer, I tried to be objective and understand his motives, passive aggressive as they were.

Most of my generation will not take the time to try and understand what Obama was really saying. He pulled a pin and tossed a grenade at a HUGE voting block and that was a really stupid thing to do. Dividing DEMS to rev up your personal base is a telling tactic.

Frankly, Obama and Clinton seem to care little for the Party and the majority of its members. I refuse to let them use me like the GOP uses the religious fundies on the right.

I will promote, support and vote for the candidate who seems more interested in serving America, the DEM Party, the public good more than self-serving. Clinton and Obama both fail my standards based on the way they manipulate voters to get the math they need to get the nomination.

I will support and vote for the DEM nominee, but I hope it is NOT either of the two manipulative squabblers presently acting like two year olds.

[paulk]

31. I would think the people who would be most upset at a 3rd

Bill Clinton term are Republicans.

[Two Americas]

37. why?

The right wing made tremendous progress during the Clinton years, consolidating their power, gaining control of the media, and setting the stage and preparing the way for the Bush administration. It is the Bush administration that has weakened the right wing. We failed to stop their mrach to power during the Clinton administration, and now we are squandering the golden opportunity to rout them.

[gateley]

32. "We are not Argentina...."

"We are not Argentina. We are not a banana republic. No CEO, no prime minister, no one in any public position, anywhere on this earth, could get away with a straight-faced claim that “I honestly believe my wife is the best candidate for the job.” Were it not so sad that we’ve arrived at this juncture in American politics, it would be laughable."

[Major Hogwash]

33. WOW! Great article! And Bill doesn't support gay marriages either!!

DOMA - Hillary and Bill's solution to getting the anti-gay marriage vote!

Naw, that couldn't be, could it?

Truth hurts.

[ursi]

34. Great article! And I thought Clintons supported "don't ask, don't tell" for gay marriage?

[Major Hogwash]

35. No, they didn't support marriages between gays at all.

They supported DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman.

That's one reason I don't understand why any gays would support Hillary these days.

[mzmolly]

36. Good. I'd gladly vote for Bill Clinton again.

Though I support Edwards in the primary and Obama is my second choice. ;)