There are more than one. And one of them is still salvageable.
« Bittergate: Going Forward | Main | Bill Clinton On Anti-Trade, Anti-Immigration Politics » The Clinton Legacies12 Apr 2008 03:25 pm Comments (6)
Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody Defends Obama. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/356191.aspx Look, could Obama have said the whole thing better? Sure. The "cling" word as it relates to religion makes it seem that these people are needy in some way. "Cling" is not the best word to use. The word "bitter" wasn't the best choice in the context he used it in but he was trying to make a broader point. I guess those are the pitfalls of being really smart. But to say that these comments are "elitist" or are "demeaning" seems to be a big time stretch. It's hard to paint Obama as an "elitist" while at the same time he's described as hip, cool and relates to the younger generation. That makes no sense. 
It's a sign of how low our political discourse is that a person of modest upbringing like Obama, who had to struggle against racist stereotypes, and who worked tirelessly as a low paid community organizer, could actually be accused of being elitist by one candidate who has made over $100 million dollars over the last 7 years, and by another one whose wife is heiress to a beer fortune of over 100 million dollars as well. Hillary in particular has never sacrificed for anyone. She was always a corporate lawyer, mostly for WalMart, crushing unions, or playing political hack for her husband Bill, to advance both of their careers. Then after Bill's presidency, she and her husband sold out big time.
"It may be too late to rehabilitate Bill Clinton the Democrat." Ah! That's rich. ambinder joins the long list of "liberal media" pundits who have been writing The Big Dogs political obit for more than 15 years.
Well hadenough, I assume that you are a Hillary supporter and good for you. I would just like to point out that if Hillary does win the nomination and then the Presidency, she will be the only President to come into office without any semblance of a honeymoon period. You and her might call that "sexism", but it ain't. Remember "ready on day one"? Her negatives are 50% and they will stay at 50% throughout her Presidency and her only hope will be to keep them at 50%. She will not get any benefit, nor will she deserve one. And despite all the crocodile tears, it will not be unfair. The democrats in Congress will not do anything to help her, because they remember how the Clinton's screwed them last time. So she is going to have what will likely be a narrow governing majority with a good chunk of that majority fighting against her the minute she takes office. And that is just the way it is. I cannot wait for the moment when the makes her healthcare proposal and tells Congress to take it or leave it because she's going to fight her own party. I cannot wait for January 22, 2009, when she forwards the Colombia FTA to Congress as-is. That will be brilliant too. Clinton Mark II is being billed as their second chance to set things right. We didn't mean to do "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and we didn't mean to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" and we didn't mean to not only do nothing about mandatory minimums for crack, but to increase Federal prosecutions for regular drug dealers, and we didn't mean to sell out the poor or go and execute a mentally retarded black man during the middle of the campaign. See that was just all politics, we were forced to. Give us a second chance to make things better they say. Well, give them a second chance and they will just screw you again. That's how the Clinton's are. The Clinton legacy is a legacy of screwing over everyone and then lying about it. Their only value is self-promotion, they don't care about anything else. And quite frankly, Bill got lucky to benefit from being President during a particular time in history when the largest population cohort in American history, the baby boomers, were hitting their prime years of productivity. I am thinking I should start a pool as to which constituencies that Hill will screw first. Will it be the unions, because she is going to push for passage of the Colombia, Panama and Korea FTA's? Will it be African-Americans, because if they do nothing visibly to help Black communities by 2010, all of her key supporters in Congress will be facing primary opponents. Will it be the LGBT community, whom she claims to fully support, but will likely do nothing about DOMA? If you don't fit into their needs for their electoral plans, expect to get screwed. And the day after the election, expect to get screwed if you support them as well. I just wonder if HRC, NOW, etc and all of these groups will be so supportive of her while they are screwing them as they were for Lieberman, who is now screwing them all by endorsing McCain. I've just gotta wonder.
Well the Bill legacy is certainly in tatters. But why shouldn't Hillary's be in tatters too? It seems a constant theme of hers is to claim private support for a progressive position, but when it comes time to actually make a public stand, she always seems to side with the conservatives. NAFTA is a good example. I think Colombia is going to be a real test as to whether she is what American's think she is or whether she actually is principled but just never got the chance to express herself because all the men in her life keep holding her back, e.g. her husband and Mark Penn. I think her claim for private support to stop the genocide in Rwanda is a disgrace. Because of that, will she do anything to commit US resources to stopping the genocide in Darfur? Doubt it. But at least she will privately claim to be against genocide, that's a relief. But I think a more fascinating story of her supposed poltical calcuation above her values goes to welfare reform. The New York Times has an interesting story about that from yesterday. It is interesting that they did not ask either Marian Edelman (founder of the Children's Defense Fund who hired her) or Peter Edelman what they thought personally about Hillary after she helped "round up votes" for welfare reform. They only mention from Hillary's perspective from her book that their lost friendship was "“sad and painful” for her. Well it is good to know that Hillary feels sad about it, but what about all those kids who she claims to care about? It is also interesting to note that her excuse about not doing anything now is the same as their excuse about passing the law then. Now: “We’ve had to mostly spend our time since President Bush came in to office preventing bad things from happening,” Mrs. Clinton said. Then: Mrs. Clinton remained troubled by parts of the bill, she wrote in her memoir, particularly the provision barring welfare for legal immigrants. But “pragmatic politics” had to be considered. “If he vetoed welfare reform a third time,” she wrote, “Bill would be handing the Republicans a potential political windfall.” Interesting, no? Also, it is funny to add that the article cuts the Clinton bs at least a little bit to actually ask someone who campaigns on behalf of poor children what Hillary's stance has been since becoming Senator. Many welfare advocates dispute Mrs. Clinton’s characterization. Since entering the Senate, they say, she has shown a predilection for compromise at the expense of the poor. Gotta love those Clintons. Absolutely priceless.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Clinton legacy has always been a mixed bag.
Bill Clinton wasn't that great of a president. He basically coopted the Republican agenda to survive politically.
Clinton was no friend of a progressive agenda, once Hillary blew it on healthcare. She had a once in a lifetime chance to pass healthcare reform when the public was ready for it and totally failed.
After that Bill and Hillary sold out to the big money and corporate interests as fast as they could.
They did nothing to further civil rights, nothing to help the poor. The Clinton term was another time of greed.
Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 3:35 PM