Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Uncategorized

Big Dog defends his wife

Karl Rove, you have messed with the wrong politician.

Remember when Bill Clinton told us in 1992 that if Americans elected him we’d get “two for the price of one,” meaning that we’d get his wife as part of the package?

Americans did elect the Arkansas governor and his wife has emerged as a political force of nature in her own right. Thus, it became quite problematic for Rove to suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the wife of the former president — had suffered a potentially seriously brain injury when she took a spill in 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bill-clinton-dumbfounded-hillary-brain-damage-talk-n105361

Enter the ex-president, who has come roaring out in defense of his wife. When you are critical of one Clinton, Mr. Rove, you’d better be ready to take on the other one.

“First they said she faked her concussion and now they say she is auditioning for her part on ‘The Walking Dead,’” Clinton said Wednesday in remarks to Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Ah, yes. The “faked” injury. You’ll remember that one, too. She took the spill and Republicans said the then-secretary of state staged some kind of bogus accident to divert attention from the Benghazi attack.

Rove now has denied saying what he said. He denied saying Hillary Clinton had suffered “brain damage.” No, but he did wonder why Mrs. Clinton reappeared after the fall wearing eyeglasses, which he said suggested she had suffered a “brain injury.” Brain “damage” or “injury,” to my mind the terms mean essentially the same thing.

President Clinton has put it all in perspective. “You can’t get too upset about it, it’s just the beginning,” he said. Hmmm. Is that a harbinger of an announcement from his wife that everyone expects … that she’s going to run for president in 2016?

Uncategorized

Monica's back; now, just go away

She’s back.

Monica Lewinsky is now 40 and she’s written a book. She has returned to the public eye apparently to sell a few copies of her book, to make some money and to set the record straight on what happened between her and the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-return-of-monica-lewinsky-106507.html?hp=r16#.U22Y5FJOWt8

Count me as one American who doesn’t care what she has to say.

Lewinsky’s role in the impeachment of President Clinton has been covered, dissected, micro-examined and analyzed to the hilt. It’s all been revealed.

She now wants to “move on,” and wants to “burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” You remember the blue dress, right? The one with the president’s, um, DNA that proved he did something naughty with the then 20-something White House intern.

He had denied doing it in testimony before a federal grand jury. Yes, he told a lie under oath and that became — officially — the reason the House of Representatives impeached him. The Senate put the president on trial, but he was acquitted.

The question perhaps always will remain, in my mind at least: How did a special prosecutor’s investigation into a real estate deal — which we called “Whitewater” — then involve what the president was doing after hours with a young woman?

I smelled a witch hunt at the time and I believe the prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was motivated to find something, anything, to pin to the president. He found it when he discovered Monica Lewinsky.

She’s back, telling her side of the story. She believes she was scapegoated by the president and first lady — and their allies. Fine. She’s entitled to say it.

I’m already hoping she’ll now move back to private life and doing whatever she’s been doing since her moment of notoriety flamed out.

Uncategorized

Some critics are unfair, but not all of them

Peter Beinert, writing for Atlantic Monthly, makes a fascinating case in defense of those who are highly critical of President Obama.

Yes, some of the criticism is race-based … but not all of it, not by a long shot. The article attached here is worth reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/radical-republican-opposition-is-not-new/361536/

He takes U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson to task for making some outrageous claims about how Barack Obama has been singled out merely because of his race. Here’s what Beinert writes: “I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson told a radio show. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States … that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

Beinert notes that Thompson then said that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t like being black, which on its face is a preposterous notion.

Obama’s critics have been harsh. Have they been any more strident than those who went after, say, Preident Bill Clinton? Hardly.

Beinert makes some interesting comparisons between the two presidents’ critics. My all-time “favorite” criticism of Bill Clinton came from the late preacher Jerry Falwell, who sponsored a video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that suggested — no, it actually accused — that Bill and Hillary Clinton orchestrated the murder of long-time friend and adviser Vince Foster, who committed suicide early in the Clinton presidency.

Let’s also point out here that Beinert is a left-leaning journalist who generally is friendly toward policies advocated by progressive politicians.

He is right to calm down those who suggest things such as those brought forward by Rep. Thompson that all criticism of President Obama is race-based and is uniquely harsh.

Bill Clinton surely would disagree.

Uncategorized

'W' surprises us with records release

George W. Bush presided over one of the more secretive administrations of the past century.

Thus, it is a pleasant surprise to see him prepare to release many of his previously classified presidential papers so openly and quickly after his two terms as president have concluded.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/george-w-bush-white-house-records-105851.html?hp=t1

President Bush is drawing deservedly high praise for this impending document release.

Politico sought the information about the Bush papers in a Freedom of Information request. The papers will reveal plenty of information and “talking points” used by the president and his chief aides.

Why is this important? Because it helps historians gain a fuller picture of a two-term presidency that — during its very first year — was jolted into a war by terrorists who flew those jetliners into buildings in New York and Washington. The war framed the rest of the Bush presidency and created a political climate the likes of which never had been seen in this country.

Observers note that President Bush is planning to be much more forthcoming in the document release than his immediate predecessor, President Bill Clinton. Some have concluded that Bush feels he has little to lose and much to gain by releasing the documents. Whatever the motivation, it is a welcome change from the manner in which the Bush administration at times conducted the affairs of state and government.

As Politico reports, “The high marks Bush is receiving for his letter are startling, since historians and a media coalition complained loudly and bitterly in 2001 about an executive order he issued ceding additional power to former presidents to prevent disclosure of their records. A judge struck down part of the order in 2007.”

The change of heart is welcome. A curious nation will look forward to seeing what’s in the record.

Uncategorized

HRC fires another 'campaign' salvo

Hillary Rodham Clinton ventured to the city of my birth and delivered what sounds to me like yet another shot in her still-to-be-announced campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Speaking to the World Affairs Council of Oregon in Portland, Clinton said the current no-compromise political climate in Washington has hurt the United States.

Gee, do you think?

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/hillary_clinton_tells_portland.html#incart_river_default

She’s saying far more than the obvious, of course. “Don’t vote for people who proudly tell you they won’t compromise,” she said to the crowd that jammed the hall to hear her words.

Indeed, Americans have gotten an overdose of what happens when zealots place their hands on the controls of government … which is that government stops working. They don’t know how to operate the levers. They refuse to listen to other points of view. They cannot bend for fear of breaking. They believe their way is the right way and other guys’ view will doom the country to, well, a miserable future.

Clinton is married to a man who knew how to compromise when he served as the 42nd president of the United States. Bill Clinton famously enacted the strategy called “triangulation,” in which he played both extremes — left and right — against each other to come up with policies that tracked more or less down the middle.

Indeed, the nation’s greatest legislators of the past 100 years or so knew “compromise” isn’t a four-letter word. They worked well with legislators on the other side: Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Mark Hatfield, Lyndon Johnson, the list can go on for a long time, but you get my drift.

My strong sense as well is that Clinton well might have included the current president in the “no compromise” category of modern politicians. Barack Obama blames Republicans for refusing to bend; the GOP fires back with some credibility that the president is afflicted with the same malady.

OK, so Clinton has said she’s “thinking about” running for president in two years. Duh!

Let’s prepare for a lot more of these kinds of talks from the former secretary of state and U.S. senator.

Uncategorized

LBJ legacy shines brightly

Fifty years ago this week, a long, tall Texan who was new in his job as president of the United States, signed a landmark bill into law that changed the face of the nation — and changed the political landscape in this country.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It guaranteed the rights of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/civil-rights-act-50

He had become president under grievous conditions just six months earlier. President John F. Kennedy’s murder was still fresh in our minds and our broken hearts. The new man in the Oval Office took office and took charge of JFK’s unfinished legislative agenda, which included the Civil Rights Act.

It took a master legislator such as LBJ to finish the job. Prior to becoming vice president, Sen. Lyndon Johnson served as majority leader and had built a reputation as, shall we say, a supreme negotiator. He was unafraid to lay his hands on fellow senators to persuade them to vote his way … or else.

He took that skill to the presidency. Meanwhile, he had to persuade southern Democrats who weren’t as keen on the Civil Rights Act as many northern Republicans. LBJ did the deed and was told by one of his best Senate friends, arch-segregationist Richard Russell, D-Ga., that the bill would “cost us the South.”

Johnson perhaps knew what the political stakes were at the time he signed the bill, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

He put his name to it.

The LBJ Library in Austin this week is honoring the late president’s achievement. Four of his presidential successors — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — will be on hand in Austin to speak to the greatness of the Civil Rights Act.

What’s more, the Johnson family along with the library administration, are working overtime to burnish LBJ’s legacy to include far more than the tragedy and heartache of the Vietnam War.

Let’s hope they succeed. Lyndon Baines Johnson deserves high praise for enacting this law.

Uncategorized

Do as I say, not do

Vance McAllister is a Louisiana Republican member of Congress who campaigned in 2012 for an office while touting his deep Christian faith, his devotion to his wife and children and his vow to make Washington a more moral place.

Then he got caught in a lengthy and reportedly passionate kiss with a female (who’s also married) member of his staff.

The stuff, shall we say, is hitting the fan down yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-kissing-staffer-rep-vance-mcallister-asks-for-forgiveness/

This is what happens when you campaign as one thing and perform in another manner.

It happened to former U.S. Sen. and one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who professed his devotion to his wife, Elizabeth, while producing a child with another woman.

It also happened when former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the leaders in the impeach Bill Clinton movement during the president’s scandal over an affair of his own. Then we learned that as Gingrich was blasting Clinton to smithereens over his conduct, the speaker was having actual sex with a House staff member.

The bipartisan list of moral hypocrites is too long to list here. Those two jumped immediately to mind.

Rep. McAllister has some explaining to do to (a) his wife and (b) the good folks of Louisiana who elected him thinking they were getting someone with the record of a Boy Scout.

How he handles the trouble with his wife will be his business alone. How he settles it with the people who are paying his salary is quite another.

“There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve,” McAllister said in a statement. “Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed.”

How’s he going to make good with his constituents? Will he vow never to do it again? If so, can he be believed?

Good luck, congressman.

Uncategorized

Carter surprises on 'Meet the Press'

Former President Jimmy Carter amazes me.

He’s 89 years young. His voice is still strong. His mind is still sharp. He apparently can still pound a nail with a hammer while building houses for Habitat for Humanity. He also surprises folks with candid answers to difficult questions.

He did so twice today on a “Meet the Press” interview with NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-president-jimmy-carter-im-being-spied-on-nsa

First, he said he fears the National Security Agency is monitoring his e-mails. So, when he corresponds with foreign leaders, he does so the old-fashioned way: He writes notes with pen and paper and mails them via the Postal Service. He is concerned about people’s privacy being harmed by NSA snooping.

Frankly, I believe the former president — being who he is and the job he once held — might have reason to be concerned far more than, say, yours truly or almost any other of the 300 million American citizens.

The second thing he told Mitchell was surprising, and disappointing. Does President Obama consult with the 39th president on foreign policy matters? Mitchell asked. Carter said no.

He noted that other men who succeeded him as president — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — all have sought his counsel over the years during difficult crises. Barack Obama hasn’t done so.

It’s disappointing to learn that about Obama. It’s not entirely surprising, given what some of his critics have said about his go-it-alone strategy in thinking through some stressful problems. Others in Washington have noted that President Obama doesn’t prefer to dicker and negotiate with legislators and that, too, is in keeping with what President Carter said in the interview broadcast Sunday.

The ex-presidents’ club is one of the most exclusive “organizations” in the world. So few of them are alive at any given time. In Barack Obama’s case, he’s got four of them with whom he can consult. Few men have made decisions as monumental as these men have made and their counsel should be welcome.

I have no knowledge, of course, about who the president calls when the going gets tough. It does sadden me to learn he hasn’t bothered to call one of them with a good bit of knowledge and life experience upon which to lean.

Uncategorized

HRC sick of the media? Duh!

Sometime around late 1999, I offered a prediction.

Hillary Rodham Clinton would not run for the U.S. Senate in New York, I said then. Why? Well, my notion was that she had grown weary of the constant battering she and her husband, President Bill Clinton, had taken from the right-wing media, not to mention the members of the Senate who voted to convict her husband of “high crimes and misdemeanors” relating to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

She ran anyway — and won handily — in 2000.

The columnist Roger Simon, one of D.C.’s smarter political analysts, writes that Clinton is sick of the media.

Will that prevent her from running for president of the United States in 2016? Part of me says “yes,” but I now know better than to suggest that HRC doesn’t have the stomach for another campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/hillary-clinton-media-simon-says-104497.html?hp=l18

I cannot quite figure Clinton out. Her husband cheated on her with a White House intern less than half his age. She forgave him — apparently. The House of Representatives impeached the president for lying to a federal grand jury about the affair. The Senate then put the president on trial, but acquitted him on all three counts relating to obstruction of justice and abuse of presidential power.

The then-first lady decided she wanted to serve with those individuals in the Senate after she and her husband vacated the White House. By all accounts, she became a stellar senator from New York and earned the respect of her colleagues. Interestingly, one of her best friends in the Senate happens to be John McCain, R-Ariz., who was among those senators who voted to convict the president. Go figure.

The media beat her up as she ran for president in 2008. Her campaign ended just before the convention that year and then — wouldn’t you know it? — she ended up serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The media kept dogging her. She had at least one major misfire, her handling of the Benghazi consulate tragedy. Again, the media poured it on.

Now, at least one leading Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — a possible presidential candidate himself in ’16 — is dredging up the Lewinsky matter as a way to besmirch Hillary’s reputation. Give me a break.

Still, the media keep digging into all this stuff.

Why should Hillary Clinton want any part of this?

Beats me. I remain baffled that she ran for the Senate in the first place.

Uncategorized

Clinton star power shows itself in Kentucky

Who’s the biggest political star in the Democratic Party?

Hint: It ain’t the guy who occupies the White House.

It’s the guy who served two presidencies prior to Barack Obama’s arrival in January 2009.

William Jefferson Clinton packed ’em in at a fundraiser this week in Louisville, Ky., on behalf of Allison Lundergan Grimes, who’s running for the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Republican Mitch McConnell.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/199419-clinton-raises-700k-for-grimes

The 42nd president raised $700,000 for Grimes’s campaign. He bowled over the audience in a state that voted against Obama twice in 2008 and 2012, but which Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.

This shouldn’t be a big surprise. Bill Clinton brought his towering presence to an even more anti-Democrat region back in 2008.

He came to Amarillo that year to campaign for his wife, the then-U.S. senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was locked in a tough primary campaign against then-Sen. Obama.

How did Bill Clinton fare when he showed up at the Grand Plaza Ballroom at the Amarillo Civic Center? He filled the place. It was an overflow crowd that, interestingly, included a lot of leading local Republicans who showed up just to hear Clinton’s remarks on behalf of his wife.

Make no mistake about what that 2008 appearance said about the former president’s magnetism. It’s real and can become a decisive asset for whoever the Democrats nominate as their presidential candidate in 2016.

Any bets that Democrats are going to nominate someone other than Hillary?