Home / Blogs / madamab's blog
Visitors' civil comments encouraged.
NYT: Obama Roolz, Bill Clinton Droolz
See if you can spot the ObamaNation talking points scattered throughout the propaganda piece. (Don't worry, I'll help you out.)
Bill Clinton loves to shop. On a March day in an elegant crafts store in Lima, the Peruvian capital, he hunted for presents for his wife and the women on his staff back home. He had given a speech at a university earlier and just came from a ceremony kicking off a program to help impoverished Peruvians. Now he was eyeing a necklace with a green stone amulet.
Standing all by himself, the former president of the United States moved his eyes methodically across shelves of wooden carvings, jewelry and sculptures as he searched for something distinctive to bring his wife. “She used to look forward to me coming home from wherever I’ve been,” he mused with a laugh. “Now I’m afraid I’ll be second fiddle to whatever world leader she’s just met.”
Talking Point: Bill's a girl! He likes to shop! He's totally emasculated by Hillary's appointment as Secretary of State. Obama Roolz, Clinton Droolz!
The advent of a new Democratic administration, with his wife in the top cabinet slot, has opened a new chapter in the eventful life of the nation’s 42nd president. No longer in exile, yet not exactly in the inner circle, Clinton is trying to define his role and find his place in the Age of Obama. He agreed to some limits on his activities to satisfy the good-government advocates around Obama, but he is still traveling the globe, pushing his favorite philanthropic programs, collecting six-figure checks for speeches, dining with foreign leaders and in his own way speaking for America again. A couple of weeks ago, he agreed to serve as the United Nations special envoy to Haiti.
Talking Point: See? Obama has only been in office five months and already he's got an Age. An Age, I tell you! He is the most historical-est, bestest Preznit EVAH! And did Bill have a clothing line and his own TeeVee station? I don't THINK so! Obama Roolz, Bill Clinton Droolz!
No one has combined the roles of former president and cabinet spouse before, and the lines are blurry. After Hillary Clinton’s nomination for secretary of state was announced, the telephones at her husband’s office rang as various ambassadors tried to go through him to get a meeting. The foreign leaders he meets with now ask after his wife and know they can use him to get messages to her. But Obama has not tapped Clinton to do anything significant for the new administration yet. Unless Obama messes up, says a former top Clinton aide, “President Clinton is irrelevant.” Obama does not need him. “This is not a circumstance in which Bill Clinton is going to have much of a role,” the aide says.
Talking Point: Bill Clinton is irrelevant. (Okay, that one was easy.) No one needs him, no one cares about him. Obama Roolz, Clinton Droolz!
For both the trip to Davos and the trip to South America that I joined, Clinton said he checked first with Jim Jones at the National Security Council. “I say: ‘Look, I’ve been invited to go to this place. These people will be there. Do you want me not to go?’ ” he told me early last month. “If they want me to make any points on their behalf, I’ll do it. I really do believe there can only be one president at a time.” A White House official later told me that Clinton also checked with Jones before agreeing to take the United Nations post [as ambassador to Haiti].
Talking Point: Bill Clinton has to ask Obama for permission to go to the bathroom! Ha! Ha! Ha! Obama Roolz, Clinton Droolz!
...At one point he devoted days to campaigning in South Carolina against the wishes of her strategists, only to watch her lose the primary.
Talking Point: Bill Clinton was why Hillary lost South Carolina, not because of the demographics of the state, and certainly not because of all the racial smears that the ObamaNation propagated against her! Obama Roolz, Clinton Droolz! And speaking of those accusations of racism:
“None of them ever really took seriously the race rap,” he told me. “They knew it was politics. I had one minister in Texas in the general election come up and put his arm around me.” This was an Obama supporter. “And he came up, threw his arm around me and said, ‘You’ve got to forgive us for that race deal.’ He said, ‘That was out of line.’ But he said, ‘You know, we wanted to win real bad.’ And I said, ‘I got no problem with that.’ I said it’s fine; it’s O.K. And we laughed about it and we went on.” The other side is moving on, too. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who once recalled an angry Clinton berating him on the phone for criticizing the former president’s campaign rhetoric, is letting bygones be bygones, at least publicly. “No fence-mending is needed,” Clyburn said through a spokeswoman.
Talking Point: It's fine to smear the "first black president' with racist accusations, even though you know they're total and complete bullshit. It's just politics! And don't worry, Obama will do it again and again to whomever tries to fight him on anything - and you'd better excuse it just like Bill Clinton! Obama Roolz, Clinton Droolz!
Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior adviser to Clinton and now is chief of staff for Obama, recently described the current White House as a far more cohesive operation than his last one. “We don’t, rather, have the kind of New Democrats versus traditionalist split that existed in that White House,” he said on CNBC. “We don’t have in this White House the president-versus-vice-president staff divisions that have been in other White Houses.” Emanuel credited “the tone and tenor that the president of the United States has set in expectations.” The next day on ABC, he suggested Obama would rank among the best American leaders, comparing him with “successful presidents and transformative presidents” like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. Emanuel made no mention of Clinton.
Talking Point: Well, duh.
I noticed that in all the many comparisons of the two Presidents contained within this article, no mention was made of Clinton's great commitment to gender equity. He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, a woman and a real liberal to boot, and half of his Cabinet was made up of women. For this commitment, columnists in the New York Times derided and attacked him mercilessly. To add insult to injury, there is a great deal of "golly gee, maybe I shouldn't have said Clinton killed Vince Foster cause it wasn't true" type of way-too-fucking-late apologizing from the wingnuts who were responsible for crucifying him day after day in the corporate media, while the columnist is strangely silent about the crucial role the New York Times played in hyping every made-up scandal until it died a whimpering, embarrassed death.
I'll tell you the thing that really disturbed me about this article, besides all the fawning over Obama and His Holy Awesomeness. It was this idea of the "transformative" Presidency. Apparently being a "transformative" President is somehow more desirable than being a successful one, which even the Koolaid-swilling RahmBo Emanuel admits Bill Clinton was. And yet, all the Obamans say that Reagan was "transformative." Um, if Reagan is the model Obama is following, then I'd rather have "successful," thank you very much.
I am very, very troubled by where this country is going. I see the Left closing its eyes and leaping off a cliff with Obama, thinking there is still a safety net underneath it, and that nothing will happen except a hell of an exciting ride. But hear the words of J-Som of Liberal Rapture, who perfectly encapsulated the way I feel about what Obama is doing to those of us on the left-leaning side of the aisle:
I think - 'no, I shouldn't get over it'. I see no reason to "get over it". A "planned" mistake of epic proportions was foisted on us last year .
And I can't get around the sense that it may be our final mistake. The mistake that ends the possibility for redemption. The one who comes after Obama shoud be as big a concern now for thinking people as Obama himself.
This mistake aided and abetted in corrupting the Left to its core - with the Left being willing, deluded participants. The far Right is alive now. Alive with passion and ideas. The Left, contrary to MSM blathering, is DEAD. A bunch of lost, confused, disempowered fools.
Exactly right. I can only "hope" that as we keep to our principles, and critique Obama from the left, that more and more Obama supporters (not Obots, they can kiss my ass!) will join with us PUMAs and make us into a force to be reckoned with.
PUMA POWER!
- madamab's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Excellent breakdown of this article madamab. I stopped reading the NYT over a year ago. "All the news that's fit to print"....not so much anymore. If I compare Barack to Bill, Bill is the man who got me excited about politics and interested in what was going on, and Barack is the man who caused me to be disillusioned with politics and fearful of the days to come.
and all the rest of the Obama Presstitutes can print all the drivel they want. Bill and Hillary Clinton will never be irrelevant. They became icons with most of the MSM bashing them 24/7. That they are worthy is best seen by the fact that the media just can't stop bashing them.
Obama on the other hand they just cannot keep from slobbering over. Doesn't matter what these Pundidiots say or write, Obama wouldn't make a pimple on Bill Clinton's ass.
A Dishonest/Biased Media Is A Crime Against Democracy!
It is extremely interesting that PUMAs, who regularly call supporters of the current president Obots and generally describe that support as a cult of personality, have such loyal memberships in the cult of Bill Clinton. The man has not been president for almost a decade, and his fanatically loyal supporters still feel greatly obliged to defend him from the likes of this utterly banal, softball magazine profile. The article does nothing more than state the obvious: Bill Clinton is now a private citizen, and has little-to-no official capacity in our government.
It is also quite ironic that madamab is upset at the following graph from the article:
You know why Bill Clinton is irrelevant for the most part? Because Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State! You know: the woman you so vigorously supported in the last election?! Do you think President Obama should go over her head and ask her husband for his advice? Yeah, I'm sure that would go over just great with our SOS, and her supporters!
Obviously, the difference between "successful" and "transformational" is just a difference of degree. They are not mutually exclusive descriptions in any way. A successful president succeeds; a transformational president succeeds on a greater level, with a deeper impact, with greater longevity. They transform the political rules at play., rather than just succeeding at playing the game already existing. And yes, being a transformative President like FDR or Reagan certainly is more desirable than being merely a successful one.
Bill Clinton was a successful president, but his success was not transformational, because he left behind a weakened Democratic Party apparatus, a highly tainted personal legacy, and very little in the way of institutions (ala Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) that lasted beyond the end of his tenure. Basically, he left a well-stewarded economy that collapsed shortly after he left office, S-Chip, DODT, NAFTA, and Welfare Reform. You'll notice the single progressive item on that list. His scandals were so radioactive Al Gore couldn't even campaign on the Clinton legacy. He was a successful president in many ways, but because he lost the Congress in 1994, and could not find the personal discipline necessary to avoid Monica Lewinsky, he was not a transformational president. His success ended on January 21st, 2001.
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was a transformational president. His presidency and more importantly, the political movement he shaped around it, kept the GOP in control culturally and politically dominant for 25 years--a generation. Clinton was not a departure of the Reagan era, he was the soft continuation of it (Welfare reform, DOMA, widespread de-regulation, NAFTA, etc.) Now, none of us--including Obama--believe that a president should be transformational in the way that Reagan was. That's obvious. Anyone who thinks that is what Obama meant is either fooling themselves, or is confused about modern American political science. But if the Democratic Party could be as transformational in its own way as Reagan was, that would be a truly great thing for our country.
The first thought that entered my mind after reading your comment Layla is that you are really pushing your luck. We are all used to, and expect, the Obama idol worship you practice so doggedly, but a word to the wise Layla...step-off when it comes to Bill Clinton. In Obama's wildest dreams he will never have the intelligence, the charisma, the political savy or the way with people that Bill Clinton has. I think that Al Gore's mistake was distancing himself from Bill during his Presidential campaign. Whatever "personal discipline" problems Bill might have had, are totally forgotten everytime he steps onto a stage or appears at any kind of forum or gathering. People love him and flock to see him. He will always be a "rock star" wherever he goes. In case you weren't aware, Bill was recently appointed U.N. special envoy to Haiti. I guess they did that because they thought him "irrelevant."
Obama is just a "wannabe"....a poseur. Bill Clinton is the real deal.
Nice to see you too, Kim.
Like I said before, Clinton-worship. Your statement just proves my point. You are just as fanatical about the Clintons as the "Obots" you claim worship Obama. I've been more than willing to criticize Obama on these pages. Are you capable of criticizing Bill Clinton for his flagrant weaknesses and failures?
It's interesting that you listed a series of personal attributes to describe Clinton's virtues. Not organizational. Not legislative. Do you really think that after Obama passes universal health care, ends the War in Iraq, tilts the USSC to the left, and entrenches the Democratic Party as the majority party for generations, he is going to care whether or not anyone thinks he is as charismatic as Bill Clinton?
It is really hilarious to watch you so deeply indulge the very personal idolatry you have so often condemned in various Obama supporters. Like I said, this is Clinton-worship. It's all deeply personal for you. Nothing substantive. He's a "rock star". Gee, where I have heard that before? Hmm...
Obama is a President with a wide Democratic Congressional majority, and the ability to realign our political map. Bill Clinton is a private citizen who will spend the rest of his years watching the wife he regularly betrayed hopscotch from one international adventure to another, while he sits on a tarmac somewhere alone, wondering what might have been. That's as real as it gets, I suppose.
Bill Clinton won the Democratic nomination and the Presidency fair and square. He didn't lie, cheat and steal his way into the Oval Office. I know this is where you'll say some snide smartass remark about how Obama didn't do any of those things, blah, blah, blah. Save it for someone who cares.
Since you're so fond of copying and pasting bits and pieces of everyone's comments, here's one for you, "Like I said, this is Clinton-worship. It's all deeply personal for you. Nothing substantive. He's a "rock star". Gee, where I have heard that before? Hmm... " I admire the man, but I don't worship any damn body.
This will be our last little chat Layla. The others can respond to you if they choose, but I won't be anymore. At first, I thought you were different from the average kool-aid guzzler, but you're not. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
The only thing your reply makes quite clear is that I got under your skin with the truth of my comment. Your idolatry of Bill Clinton is no different than the "Obots" you so loudly, deeply loathe. The truth is you're just like them, and you know it. And the realization of that fact is what has gotten you so upset here.
had to say because she is on my ignore list.
However I did see the subject: Clinton Worship.
Can't let that go.
Unlike Obots, I do not, will, not, never did "worship" any damn politician. Some I have some small amount of respect for. Bill and Hillary Clinton are not at the top of my list but they are on it.
Obama is not on my list. He never would be, he never could be. Petty little lying politicians with delusions of grandeur are too common to be anything out of the ordinary. And he's not the first mediocre, corrupt man to sit in the Oval Office and he won't be the last. And he wouldn't, as a speaker, make a pimple on Bill Clinton's ass. Without his little teleprompter and his speech writer he's got nothing but ah,ah,ahh.
A Dishonest/Biased Media Is A Crime Against Democracy!
Right, because Bill Clinton never used a teleprompter, or a speechwriter.
(cue cricket sounds...)
And far wide of the mark.
Let's see Obama give a speech from memory when some idiot loads the wrong one on the teleprompter. See Clinton, Bill, health care address to Congress, 1993.
GONE FISHING
There was nothing "cheap" about it. If people want to castigate Obama for requiring use of a prompter--be it a paper one or a video one--then it is only intellectually honest to remind them that all other politicians do this, too. And by reducing political virtue to Clinton's impressive one-time memorizational feat, you're actually lowering the standard by which we judge our presidents and other politicians.
From where I sit, that would be impossible. The standard is already at rock bottom.
Lemme try this again. The point is that Clinton could manage a speech without the teleprompter. I do not believe Obama could.
Layla, your Clinton-hate is as palpable as the distaste we have around here for Obama. But thanks for this line: "Do you really think that after Obama passes universal health care, ends the War in Iraq, tilts the USSC to the left, and entrenches the Democratic Party as the majority party for generations, he is going to care whether or not anyone thinks he is as charismatic as Bill Clinton?"
What I think is that after Obama muffs the closing of Gitmo, screws up the threat from North Korea, blows universal health care because he couldn't be bothered to make a plan, leaves American soldiers on Iraqi soil for a decade, pays off his friends in the banking and insurance industries and destroys the Democratic party for decades, Bill Clinton is going to look better than ever.
GONE FISHING
And he'll do all that while taking fun trips and date nights all over the world and the country on our dime. Spending his time and energy on 'lookin good' and laughing his ass off at the idiots who put him in office.
would want one party entrenched as a majority party for generations. What absolute drivel and what a substandard idea of what a Democracy entails.
But then it wasn't long ago that there was all the talk of a permanent "Republican" majority too. I didn't believe conservatives that touted that nonsense then and I don't believe the dimwits in the Democratic Party that tout it now. A permanent majority is the path to tyranny should it occur. And besides, the fools that now rule Washington D.C. will spend this country into bankruptcy long before that happens anyway.
The voters will not be pleased about that. Except for all those who have a permanent hand out for a permanent handout that is and believe it is the governments job to take care of all us poor little people that can't take care of ourselves.
I, happily, poor and downtrodden as I may be, ain't buying that malarkey. (Not that I am happily poor and down trodden, but I will take that to the damn dimwits in Washington being in charge of my life every waking moment.)
Americans, given a chance, can stand on their own two feet just fine thank you. Many/most of us even prefer it that way. Many/most of us find it a matter of pride to do so. If the government doesn't screw the country up beyond repair that is. As they seem determined to do.
A Dishonest/Biased Media Is A Crime Against Democracy!
No, I don't hate former President Clinton. I am just as blown away by his personal charm and obvious intelligence as the next person. I can say that I will always remain extremely disappointed in how little he was actually able to accomplish during his 8 years in office. That doesn't equal "hate", though it's not surprising that this nuance is lost on you.
What would we do without them? In this case, Madamab, you have used them to effectively stop the fetid drivel spewing from the Times, giving one a chance to breath and think. Thank you.
But have pity - the poor old paper is on its last legs - imagine that, and with a Dem administration. So it seems they are crawling on their hands and knees with hands outstretched for the Zero's affection and financial support.
It must be a constant pain for the Zero to see Bill's continuing popularity when he did so much to replace him in the hearts and minds of the people. Instead, he has to watch Bill's popularity grow as his own erodes. The Clintons are now the ones who are revered around the world as it gets to know the teleprompter America elected president better.