Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 00:37:37

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Um, concession speech? Why are you talking about the popular vote?

I'm thinking habit.

I went out to the living room to watch this, then realized she wasn't saying anything so I'll catch (hopefully) the end of the game.

She was speaking in front of a group of her supporters. Supporters and contributors that have been fired up with her recent showings. She might feel some sense of "duty" to them or whatever. I wouldn't have expected her to say "Thanks, but all your contributions and work were for nothing". Especially considering how strong she finished (I think it was 6 of the last 9, or something like that). My guess is she'll let some time pass (a few days, a week) for things to cool down before bowing out, or maybe just fade away as the days and weeks pass.

All the talk tonite of "dream ticket" is funny. The Obama pundits are practically sickened by the idea... proclaiming the Clinton era over, she isn't "change", et al. No worries, ain't gonna happen (unless the powers that be force it). It wouldn't be in her best political interest anyway... she'd have more power as a Senator, and if McCain were to win, she'd be in better position for 2012.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 01:40:43

jeff2sf wrote:That was awful.

1. You haven't actually told me why I need to listen to everything Bill says.

I never said you (or anyone) did.

jeff2sf wrote:2. You haven't told me why blacks AREN'T "core dems"

I never said they weren't, nor did I mean to give that impression. When people say the "core Democratic base" in the context used, it typically refers to the blue collars and rurals (regardless of their race or gender). Would the term "Reagan Democrats" been more preferable? Or maybe terms I've seen used by some Obama pundits ("NASCAR man", "uneducated", "low information" "whites/rubes who live in the nation's sh**holes")?

jeff2sf wrote:3. You also haven't convinced me that Hillary's more moderate, on a move the needle sort of scale than Obama.

I never said she was. That's why I don't really care for any of this seasons crop o' candidates. But the primaries have shown that she had better appeal with the blue collars and Reagan Dems, even when it was obvious she didn't have much of a chance, she still did better with them than Obama. The big question now is will Obama be able to appeal and connect to them or might a sizeable enough number defect to McCain. The sentiment I've seen and heard from Axelrod and the Obama camp is like "meh" along with catch phrases like "new Democratic coalition".

Even with the Dubya stank, Iraq, economy, et al, it's not going to be a Dem cakewalk. The R's play hardball and play to win at any cost. They will throw all the slime they can at Obama, there will be more Obama controversies whether legit or not... remember, it wasn't Camp Hillary that brought out Rev. Wright and "cursed with a baby" and "cling to guns/religion", that stuff was brought to you by the right wing watercarriers. There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 08:58:57

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:My job. It didn't end up being a big deal. My dad just ended up watching the returns at home.

Was it actually illegal, as in you could be charged with a crime or taken to court in a civil action, or just bad form for showing a preference in a contested primary?

The organization I work for can't coordinate with campaigns. So technically I guess I could have gone and not talked about the campaign, but given it was a victory party, that would have been hard.

by **The Red Tornado** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 09:07:24

dajafi wrote: it's only through the high cost of gas that we get to needed behavior change. Less driving, more transit usage (and better systems), higher-mileage vehicles and ginormous investment in alternatives are the necessary steps.

1st signs that this is right?

by **traderdave** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:18:54

Woody wrote:The peeps on CNN are ripping Hillary

As well they should have been, especially when that idiot Terry McAuliffe introduces her as the "next President of the United States". I nearly fell off the couch when I heard that and I'll bet Obama did too (although I doubt he was laying down when he heard it).

I understand that Clinton is trying to make Obama twist in the wind just a little bit by holding Denver over his head but that speech seemed a bit over the top. I mean she very nearly, IMHO, made Obama out to be unworthy of the nomination and that is very, very dangerous if she truly has the party's best interests at heart.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:12:21

Have people read the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton yet? I believe someone posted a link a few pages back - it's a free download.

Just an amazing hatchet job - just in case we were nostalgic for the time the media went ape over a president's missteps, so long as they were about philandering rather than, you know, costing human lives or something like that.

The author over and over insinuates that Clinton should not be hanging around with Steve Bing or Ron Burkle, but never says exactly why. And of course, the article is just loaded with anonymous "tut tut" quotes about how "we're not exactly sure but Bill may have done this, or being seen with that person certainly raises questions."

Let's just say that Bill Clinton has had an affair or two in his ex-presidency and that he hangs around a lot with a couple of wealthy Democratic donors who like to have a good time. Let's stipulate that.

So the hell what? He's the ex-president - what difference does it make?

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:34:31

CNN lists Ed Rendell among the potential Obama Veeps :?

If that happened, I'd probably laugh out loud. Camerasoverhere

by **traderdave** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:43:07

Woody wrote:CNN lists Ed Rendell among the potential Obama Veeps :?

If that happened, I'd probably laugh out loud. Camerasoverhere

I wouldn't!

I found this article to be a good read (it is interesting to see how things look to our foreign friends):

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mic ... _gain.html

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:02:53

BuddyGroom wrote:Have people read the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton yet? I believe someone posted a link a few pages back - it's a free download.

Just an amazing hatchet job - just in case we were nostalgic for the time the media went ape over a president's missteps, so long as they were about philandering rather than, you know, costing human lives or something like that.

The author over and over insinuates that Clinton should not be hanging around with Steve Bing or Ron Burkle, but never says exactly why. And of course, the article is just loaded with anonymous "tut tut" quotes about how "we're not exactly sure but Bill may have done this, or being seen with that person certainly raises questions."

Let's just say that Bill Clinton has had an affair or two in his ex-presidency and that he hangs around a lot with a couple of wealthy Democratic donors who like to have a good time. Let's stipulate that.

So the hell what? He's the ex-president - what difference does it make?

Yeah, I read it. It was a nasty piece of business (I happen to agree with his premise, but journalistically the screwing around allegations and guilt by association with scumbags like Burkle are very thin). But suffice it to say that you're a lot more forgiving of this man's sociopathic sense that the rules simply don't apply to him--as he coddles dictators and shamelessly takes our tax dollars to pay his literally impossible phone bills--than I am.

That last thing might be my biggest problem with Bill Clinton. There's nothing libelous about Purdom's comparison of Harry Truman's post-presidential career to Clinton's:

Throughout our history there has been a strong presumption that former presidents should conduct their affairs in ways that do not seem to cheapen, degrade, or exploit the high office they held. Hillary Clinton’s own service as senator, and her presidential campaign, reinforce that imperative in Bill Clinton’s case. Harry Truman was so reluctant to accept any business or commercial offer, however high-minded, that might be seen as capitalizing on the presidency that he nearly went broke in retirement. A few years after leaving office, he had seen a $600,000 advance from Life magazine for his memoirs whittled away by expenses and 67 percent income taxes to a net gain of about $37,000. Only the sale of his family farm for a shopping center saved him from real embarrassment. Finally, he took his case to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, and the first bill stipulating an annual presidential pension (initially $25,000) and money for offices and staff was passed.

Clinton benefits handsomely from Truman’s foresight. His presidential pension has totaled more than $1.2 million since he left office, and despite his fantastic private-sector income, an analysis this spring by the Web site Politico showed that he has taken almost as much in taxpayer dollars for his post-presidential existence as the other two living ex-presidents—Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush—combined. Since 2001, Clinton has received more in almost every category—pension, staff salaries, supplies—than any of his colleagues in that smallest of clubs. Before Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford died, Clinton’s telephone and rent expenses came close to exceeding the comparable expenses for all four then living former presidents combined.

This is not uncharacteristic, though. I thought this quote from his spokesperson was the key to the whole Clinton mindset:

...[A] spokesman, Jay Carson, e-mailed me this comment: “The ills of the Democratic Party can be seen perfectly in the willingness of fellow Democrats to say bad things about President Clinton. If you ask any Republican about Reagan they will say he still makes the sun rise in the morning, but if you ask Democrats about their only two-term president in 80 years, a man who took the party from the wilderness of loserdom to the White House and created the strongest economy in American history, they’d rather be quoted saying what a reporter wants to hear than protect a strong brand for the party. Republicans look at this behavior and laugh at us.”

Yes: by all means, we should hero-worship and airbrush out the faults of our leaders.

In narrowly political terms, Carson probably has a point. But the same hagiographical instinct that strengthens the "Republican brand" also blinds them to the faults of their standard-bearers... so you wind up with an impervious-to-criticism George W. Bush running the country into absolute disaster because nobody in his party has the balls to tell him he might be wrong.

Had Hillary won, I would have worried about the exact same thing.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:28:25

I think Jay Carson makes a valid point though - look no further than the journalistic career of George Stephanopoulos. Democrats have this unseemly willingness to step on and criticize their own in order to win favor the "conventional wisdom" setters in the DC/national political media. Republicans are less afflicted with this, notwithstanding the furor over the Scott McClellan book.

I certainly don't want Bill Clinton cutting deals with genocidal dictators - I'm not sure the article makes clear he did that, although I'll admit it's an instance that looks very bad - but for 16 years, there's been this attitude toward Clinton - that too many Democrats give credence and support to - that it's okay to serve up a stew of this might have happened and this probably didn't happen but sure looks bad about him. Him, and nobody else.

As for the Truman example, that's wonderful but why should Bill Clinton be held to that standard if Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were not? This is just the latest example of the "liberal media" holding Democrats to much higher standards, especially in financial matters, than Republicans.

Personally, I'm thrilled for Bill Clinton that he's realized significant wealth in his post-presidency. As for his possible dalliances, I long ago decided he and Hillary must have more European-type marriage, and if they're both okay with it, what business is of ours?

Finally, what makes Ron Burkle a scumbag? I'd rather Bill hang around with someone like him than with a Ken Lay or someone like that. Again, Republicans can hob-nob with billionaires (and I'm sure Republican billionaires like sweet young things, too) but Democrats can't?

Bill Clinton, in my view, was an excellent president who served us well for eight years. He's off the clock now and owes us nothing, so long as he does not harm us. I'm not convinced he does, or ever has.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:43:15

traderdave wrote:
Woody wrote:The peeps on CNN are ripping Hillary

As well they should have been, especially when that idiot Terry McAuliffe introduces her as the "next President of the United States". I nearly fell off the couch when I heard that and I'll bet Obama did too (although I doubt he was laying down when he heard it).

I understand that Clinton is trying to make Obama twist in the wind just a little bit by holding Denver over his head but that speech seemed a bit over the top. I mean she very nearly, IMHO, made Obama out to be unworthy of the nomination and that is very, very dangerous if she truly has the party's best interests at heart.

I thought Obama's taking of the high road in his speech made him look very Presidential and Hillary very much the twizat.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:58:47

BuddyGroom wrote:I certainly don't want Bill Clinton cutting deals with genocidal dictators - I'm not sure the article makes clear he did that, although I'll admit it's an instance that looks very bad - but for 16 years, there's been this attitude toward Clinton - that too many Democrats give credence and support to - that it's okay to serve up a stew of this might have happened and this probably didn't happen but sure looks bad about him. Him, and nobody else.
Finally, what makes Ron Burkle a scumbag? I'd rather Bill hang around with someone like him than with a Ken Lay or someone like that. Again, Republicans can hob-nob with billionaires (and I'm sure Republican billionaires like sweet young things, too) but Democrats can't?

Ken Lay probably wasn't a scumbag. A bit out-of-touch, a bit in love with the trappings of being important, but not a scumbag.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:14:36

BuddyGroom wrote:Bill Clinton, in my view, was an excellent president who served us well for eight years. He's off the clock now and owes us nothing, so long as he does not harm us. I'm not convinced he does, or ever has.

Bill Clinton's done some good in his post presidency. From the Vanity Fair reply memo...

In six years, the William J. Clinton Foundation has grown from a small staff with two offices in the U.S. into a leading global non-governmental organization, with over 800 staff and volunteers in 44 nations with the mission to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.

The Clinton Foundation is made up of seven initiatives that address some of the most pressing global challenges, including HIV/AIDS, climate change, childhood obesity in the United States and economic development around the world.

The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) is focused on expanding access to HIV/AIDS care and treatment. Through the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative:

- 1.4 million people - nearly half of all people on treatment - have access to HIV/AIDS treatment at reduced prices reflecting CHAI negotiations.

- Over the last two years, prices for pediatric ARVs have been reduced by 89%. CHAI has achieved 7 breakthrough price reductions on ARVs and diagnostics in four years, often reducing their cost by 50%.

The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) is working with 40 of the world's largest cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of programs, including building retrofits and improvements in transportation and waste management. Additionally, CCI's purchasing consortium for energy efficiency products is accessible by more than 1,300 cities.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) provides an innovative, meaningful, and tangible platform to help the public and private sectors work together to devise and implement solutions to some of the world¹s most pressing challenges. CGI has inspired nearly 1,000 Commitments to Action to improve over 200 million lives in 100 countries.

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation - a partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association - is working with over 2,000 schools nationwide to create healthier school environments. The Alliance has brokered agreements with 30 companies and trade associations in the beverage, food & dairy industries, resulting in a 41% decrease in calories in the products shipped to schools.

He's been rather philanthropic in his post presidency, and I don't get the impression he expects plaudits or personal publicity, as I haven't heard about these until I saw the VF memo.

by **swishnicholson** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:34:26

dajafi wrote:
That last thing might be my biggest problem with Bill Clinton. There's nothing libelous about Purdom's comparison of Harry Truman's post-presidential career to Clinton's:

Throughout our history there has been a strong presumption that former presidents should conduct their affairs in ways that do not seem to cheapen, degrade, or exploit the high office they held. Hillary Clinton’s own service as senator, and her presidential campaign, reinforce that imperative in Bill Clinton’s case. Harry Truman was so reluctant to accept any business or commercial offer, however high-minded, that might be seen as capitalizing on the presidency that he nearly went broke in retirement. A few years after leaving office, he had seen a $600,000 advance from Life magazine for his memoirs whittled away by expenses and 67 percent income taxes to a net gain of about $37,000. Only the sale of his family farm for a shopping center saved him from real embarrassment. Finally, he took his case to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, and the first bill stipulating an annual presidential pension (initially $25,000) and money for offices and staff was passed.

There may be nothing libelous in that quote about Truman, but it certainly made my head spin. Truman was so concerned about looking like he was profiting from his presidency that he took a $600, 000 advance on his memoirs (about fishing, I presume) and then campaigned to institute a pension for presidents and their staffs? (Which he then blames Clinton for accepting).

Truman may, in fact, been as high-minded as Gandhi, but that's not what that quote says. But I realize it's just words to fit between Clinton....not Truman and then get on to the next slam.

Who needs facts when you can use ponderous terms like "Throughout our history.." without citation and get away with it anyway?

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:52:28

jeff2sf wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:I certainly don't want Bill Clinton cutting deals with genocidal dictators - I'm not sure the article makes clear he did that, although I'll admit it's an instance that looks very bad - but for 16 years, there's been this attitude toward Clinton - that too many Democrats give credence and support to - that it's okay to serve up a stew of this might have happened and this probably didn't happen but sure looks bad about him. Him, and nobody else.
Finally, what makes Ron Burkle a scumbag? I'd rather Bill hang around with someone like him than with a Ken Lay or someone like that. Again, Republicans can hob-nob with billionaires (and I'm sure Republican billionaires like sweet young things, too) but Democrats can't?

Ken Lay probably wasn't a scumbag. A bit out-of-touch, a bit in love with the trappings of being important, but not a scumbag.

Are you suggesting a higher level of tolerance for the Enron chairman - the guy who should have been overseeing a company that destroyed its own employees' pensions, gleefully caused market fluctuations and brown-outs in California for its own gain, and swindled untold investors out of untold investment dollars - than for a presumably law-abiding supermarket magnate with a union-friendly record, but as a divorcee has a taste for 19-year-olds (who presumably get more out of the bargain than Enron investors ever did).

Corporate criminals like Ken Lay are among the ultimate scumbags in my view. I have yet to hear from Todd Purdum (the Vanity Fair article's author) or dajafi why Ron Burkle is scum.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:54:16

Maybe I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud Puritans, but I just don't think it's cool for a billionaire in his mid-50s to be screwing girls who can't legally drink in this country. Or seemly for a former President to be hanging out with a guy like that.

Is it illegal? No. Is it my business? No. But it is my opinion.

edit: I would agree that Ken Lay, a guy who through either malice or neglect stole the savings of thousands of workers, is far, far worse. Burkle is deeply icky; what Lay did is abhorrent. It's a little bit like when that Louis Black show compared Tila Tequila to Kim Jong Il.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:55:58

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:Bill Clinton, in my view, was an excellent president who served us well for eight years. He's off the clock now and owes us nothing, so long as he does not harm us. I'm not convinced he does, or ever has.

Bill Clinton's done some good in his post presidency. From the Vanity Fair reply memo...

In six years, the William J. Clinton Foundation has grown from a small staff with two offices in the U.S. into a leading global non-governmental organization, with over 800 staff and volunteers in 44 nations with the mission to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.

The Clinton Foundation is made up of seven initiatives that address some of the most pressing global challenges, including HIV/AIDS, climate change, childhood obesity in the United States and economic development around the world.

The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) is focused on expanding access to HIV/AIDS care and treatment. Through the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative:

- 1.4 million people - nearly half of all people on treatment - have access to HIV/AIDS treatment at reduced prices reflecting CHAI negotiations.

- Over the last two years, prices for pediatric ARVs have been reduced by 89%. CHAI has achieved 7 breakthrough price reductions on ARVs and diagnostics in four years, often reducing their cost by 50%.

The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) is working with 40 of the world's largest cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of programs, including building retrofits and improvements in transportation and waste management. Additionally, CCI's purchasing consortium for energy efficiency products is accessible by more than 1,300 cities.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) provides an innovative, meaningful, and tangible platform to help the public and private sectors work together to devise and implement solutions to some of the world¹s most pressing challenges. CGI has inspired nearly 1,000 Commitments to Action to improve over 200 million lives in 100 countries.

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation - a partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association - is working with over 2,000 schools nationwide to create healthier school environments. The Alliance has brokered agreements with 30 companies and trade associations in the beverage, food & dairy industries, resulting in a 41% decrease in calories in the products shipped to schools.

He's been rather philanthropic in his post presidency, and I don't get the impression he expects plaudits or personal publicity, as I haven't heard about these until I saw the VF memo.

Thank you. I will say that Bill Clinton's post White House efforts, philanthropic or not, have gotten plenty of coverage. You may just have missed it but Bill Clinton does not labor in obscurity like a Latin American missionary or something. But good works are good works. Still waiting to hear about any from ex-presidents Ford or Reagan before they died.

I can only hope this trashy article will seriously hurt the career of Todd Purdum. Didn't really know of him before, but I'll view anything he writes in the future as suspect unless proven otherwise.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 13:59:05

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud Puritans, but I just don't think it's cool for a billionaire in his mid-50s to be screwing girls who can't legally drink in this country. Or seemly for a former President to be hanging out with a guy like that.

Is it illegal? No. Is it my business? No. But it is my opinion.

edit: I would agree that Ken Lay, a guy who through either malice or neglect stole the savings of thousands of workers, is far, far worse. Burkle is deeply icky; what Lay did is abhorrent. It's a little bit like when that Louis Black show compared Tila Tequila to Kim Jong Il.

Yeah, it's a bit unseemly. Honestly, if I were in Burkle's shoes (including the part about being unmarried), I'd probably indulge to some degree. I doubt many of those comely 19-year-old are victims, much less wide-eyed virgins. They may not be legal to drink, but they are legal to consent to sex.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 14:01:40

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud Puritans, but I just don't think it's cool for a billionaire in his mid-50s to be screwing girls who can't legally drink in this country. Or seemly for a former President to be hanging out with a guy like that.

Is it illegal? No. Is it my business? No. But it is my opinion.

edit: I would agree that Ken Lay, a guy who through either malice or neglect stole the savings of thousands of workers, is far, far worse. Burkle is deeply icky; what Lay did is abhorrent. It's a little bit like when that Louis Black show compared Tila Tequila to Kim Jong Il.

What did Ken Lay do that was abhorrent? Andrew Fastow is a crook and a bad person. Jeff Skilling is a more gray area, probably sleazy investment banker. Ken Lay? A guy who maybe should have had his hand on the wheel a bit more, but not a guy who actively participated in harming shareholders. Have you read Smartest Guys in the Room?

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 14:02:55

I have not read Smartest Guys in the Room. Perhaps I should. But considering the damage Enron did, I find it hard to believe he didn't share in significant culpability. Maybe I'm wrong, and should be instead comparing Burkle to Fastow or Skilling.

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy