Bill Clinton: Without Class
After returning yesterday evening from an afternoon & evening of socializing and entertainment, I logged on to find another whopper from the master of the whopper, the man who joins Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (Democrats as well) as the only presidents re-elected without winning a majority of the popular vote:
It’s like when they issued the evacuation order. . . . That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn’t have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn’t have cars, so they couldn’t take them out.
Yep, while interviewed on ABC’s This Week by his former acolyte George Stephanopolous, Bill Clinton spoke those words. The former president forgot to mention that it was the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans who let his city’s fleet of buses sit idle and so failed to evacuate the less fortunate residents of the Crescent City.
Perhaps, Clinton was upset that many of those affected the hurricane liked the president’s speech last Thursday. Even the woman who managed his designated successor’s presidential campaign was proud of the president and the plan he put forward.
Clinton didn’t just take issue with Mr. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. He also faulted him for the war in Iraq and other issues. And while I was busying socializing, browsing for books and watching the pleasant flick, Just Like Heaven, a few bloggers weighed in on Mr. Clinton’s lack of class. They pointed out how his criticisms of his successor were at odds with his past statements, made both while he was in office and after he left. This blogger does a good job of fisking the former president’s interview with his one-time aide. (HT: Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd.)
Powerline claims we are entering “uncharted waters” for until now, “former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors.” Lorie Byrd has two posts on the topic (calling him a “No-Class Slime” and providing great links here). At National Review Online’s the Corner, K-Lo says Clinton’s working on the “MoveOn crowd for Hill.”
Up until this weekend, I had thought that, by and large, Clinton had showed more class as former president than he had as president. He had supported President Bush’s Iraq policy, had even defended him against criticsm for his handling of Katrina. He has become friendly with his successor and with his predecessor (his successor’s father).
And President Bush has extended to Clinton the respect one would expect a president of the United States to show a former chief executive. He offered gracious speeches when Clinton’s portrait was unveiled at the White House in June of 2004 and at the opening of the Clinton library last November.
It seems that, despite his past statements and some sensible domestic policies as president that Bill Clinton, just like his wife, is becoming just another Dean Democrat.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
In a long, but brilliant post on Clinton and his comments this weekend, the Anchoress observes:
What he does serve is his own towering ambition, and his other, sadly insatiable (and ultimately destructive) need – his need to be loved.
Just read the whole thing. It’s well worth your time.
50 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Interesting that he does this while co-chairing a bi-partisan charity for Katrina victims, at President Bush’s request.
Exactly how sour are those grapes, Mr. ex-President?
Comment by Clint — September 19, 2005 @ 5:26 am - September 19, 2005
WHo cares what Clinton says. He’s only thinking about where his next bj is coming from.
Comment by Joey Petain — September 19, 2005 @ 6:05 am - September 19, 2005
Clinton is missing the power of the office. It appears anything he can do to effect “Hey, I’m still here … pay attention to me”. is good with hum.
Comment by Wendy — September 19, 2005 @ 7:08 am - September 19, 2005
Did anybody catch Clinton on CNN this weekend? It was Saturday evening. I was working out at the gym but listening to MP3s instead, so didn’t get any audio.
But based on what I saw, from I could tell, he was in some sort of town hall meeting with Wolfowitz, Bono, and Miss Cleo (among others, I think). Anybody got a beat on this?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — September 19, 2005 @ 7:30 am - September 19, 2005
Getting back to the comment yesterday that the level of Bush-bashing is no worse than Clinton-bashing: When Clinton was President, did we see art galleries and universities sponsoring art like this and defending it in the name of “Free Speech?”
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2005 @ 8:48 am - September 19, 2005
Hahaha, still on those buses? Man. You people are really reaching now.
Comment by Joey — September 19, 2005 @ 10:53 am - September 19, 2005
Wow, and to think Clinton’s Able Danger’s 2000 spy ring is being protected for the sake of holding this country together.
Comment by syn — September 19, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - September 19, 2005
Wendy, I think you’re on to something.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 19, 2005 @ 12:06 pm - September 19, 2005
Has anyone sent Dick Cheney the Memo informing him that an ex-President is picking on his Vice President again. He will show Bill Clinton what the term “without class” really means when he uses his obscene, dirty mouth, profanity and tells Clinton to “F*ck off”!
Comment by Gary — September 19, 2005 @ 1:48 pm - September 19, 2005
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=185
Comment by Lawrence Bell — September 19, 2005 @ 1:51 pm - September 19, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18rich.html?ex=1127707200&en=f564b5fc80890ef1&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Comment by Lawrence Bell — September 19, 2005 @ 1:52 pm - September 19, 2005
I don’t know, guys… is what the former Prez said really all that bad? Is it that novel? He’s just parroting the most biased of the MSM. Did he really do something unique in the tradition of Dem ex-presidnets? I thought Jimminy-Cricket Carter had crossed that threshhold a few times already in his anti-war, Bush-hating venom.
Clinton didn’t do anything worse than he’s done in the past –he used the comments to bring attention to his newest “love”: the Clinton globalization initiatives. It’s an old game; make wild-assed statements and slip in your PR topic of the week –in Clinton’s case, that usually means something he’s doing. This time it did, too. The NY mtg of “world leaders and power elite” –including George Soros.
“Only this effort is different because we’re asking world leaders to go back to their countries and do something for globalization in the next year”… former Prez Wm J Clinton, 9/16/05 on Larry King. If only he’d have followed his own advice and applied that kernel of sophmoric slop to world terrorism, 9-11 might have been averted.
Don’t get too exercised by Bill’s latest antics –it’ll only encourage him to do more wild-assed things in the future. And we can all do without a helping of that slop.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 19, 2005 @ 2:07 pm - September 19, 2005
Watched him on NBC’s Meet the Press and Tim Russert allowed him to get away unchallenged on some stupid comments and interpretations of history under his Administration.
Comment by wordsmith — September 19, 2005 @ 2:12 pm - September 19, 2005
The buses might not have done any good if they had been used.
Just as a side note, but a very disturbing one:
Apparently it wasn’t the only town that did this:
It looks like it wasn’t just a matter of not having transportation. They were sealed in.
So at least two apparently mostly white suburbs end up blocking access out of the city, leaving a mostly black population trapped in the midst of rising floodwaters with nowhere to turn.
This is a difficult issue. I can understand issues of law and order, of which there was little of in the aftermath. And in the beginning it looks like they started to do the right thing.
But I just can’t get around the fact of two white suburbs preventing residents of a black urban center from evacuating away from a catastrophe. These were human beings, not an infestation of rats that have had the exits of their burrow closed, and a fire-hose brought in to drown them out.
Living in Los Angeles, I have to wonder. If an inexplicable cataclysm happened downtown would the evacuees heading north find themselves blocked off at the Newhall pass by the City of Santa Clarita?
Maybe the accusations of racism should be made toward the mirror, rather than toward the federal or state governments.
You can read the full article below.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/12674387.htm
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 19, 2005 @ 3:35 pm - September 19, 2005
Bill is absolutely correct, it is unthinkable and insupportable that the tax cuts would not be repealed. If you’re a trust fund baby, you’ll have to settle for one new yacht instead of two. The vast majority of Americans will never notice the end of the tax cuts, except to wonder why the schools have gotten a little better.
Comment by Jeany — September 19, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - September 19, 2005
Gary’s comment (#9) is a sign of Bush Derangement Syndrome (B.D.S.). Let’s see when a rude Senator pesters the Vice-President, he, like many of us, let go and cussed him out. And the left dwells on this (and dwells on this) as if no liberal ever lost his temper in a difficult moment.
Look, the Vice President is only human and given all the insults and false accusations he has had to endure from Senator Leahy and his ilk, it’s to this good man’s credit that he hasn’t lost his temper more often.
And once again, we see someone on the left, instead of addressing the issue of the post, using the comment section as a means to attack a Republican.
Let’s see. Clinton goes before the camera and breaks the tradition of civility which has defined the rhetoric of former presidents for more than 200 years (with a few exceptions from some guy from Georgia). He knows he’s in a public forum, definitely “on the record,” talking to the American people (or that small percentage of Americans who still watch the Sunday talk shows). And the Vice-president who, not in a public forum, utters a swear word to a rude Senator. Hmmm…. It’s pretty clear to me which one lacks class.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 19, 2005 @ 4:58 pm - September 19, 2005
To bolster the notion that Clinton is spotlighting because it is all about him, I remembered an article from the BBC (Clinton calls for third term). In the article he brings up the notion that 20 or so years after leaving office, the nation may need to call up a previous president to solve a challange faced in the past.
Give Me a Break ! ! ! No one, no mater how brilliant their leadership in office was, is that indispensable that they are the only one to solve a problem. The previous leader can coach or mentor, chair a task force. This republic is not that fragile that we must depend on a single person.
Comment by Wendy — September 19, 2005 @ 5:18 pm - September 19, 2005
#15 — Actually, the trust fund kids — the Gores, the Kennedies, the Heinz-Kerries — have armies of lawyers and accountants to make sure they avoid taxes. In fact, Massachussetts has an optional higher tax rate for people who want to “contribute” more. But, John Kerry and Tuhrayzuh pay the lower rate. Taxes are for little people, you see. And if Bill Clinton thinks his taxes are too low, there is no law that says he can’t pay more than the maximum rate. If he wants to tax his own income at 50-60-70 ot even a hundred permit, he can write the Treasury a check at any time.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2005 @ 5:21 pm - September 19, 2005
Impeach Bill Clinton…
Oh wait. We already did that.
Boy, I got to tell ya, I am really wishing I had not voted for this ass in 1992. And it is not really about anything he did as president that is irking me so. Mainly, I am frustrated by what he did not do as president a…
Trackback by SoCalPundit — September 19, 2005 @ 5:29 pm - September 19, 2005
I’d put it this way, Jeany…..I know what happens when liberals run a school district, and it ain’t pretty, regardless of how much money they get.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 19, 2005 @ 5:39 pm - September 19, 2005
#9
Maybe he should have called him a “F***ing Jew bastard” instead?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 19, 2005 @ 5:40 pm - September 19, 2005
#20
Or, look at the New Orleans schools for an example of the failure of liberalism.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 19, 2005 @ 5:42 pm - September 19, 2005
Bill Clinton Joins The Bush Bashing
Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget
So reads the latest headline off the wires.
AFP reports: “Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katr…
Trackback by California Conservative — September 19, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - September 19, 2005
Yeah, the “underfunded public schools” is just another liberal myth that will not die.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2005 @ 6:11 pm - September 19, 2005
#14
Funny how you try to paint a community that is more than 50% minority and poor as an affluent, gated white fortress.
Gretna La. is less than 50% white and almost 40% black. The town info is widely available…a poor mixed community with a median household income of under 30K. And damaged by the hurricane, barely holding on.
The story of the refugees (some whites included) being turned away at the bridge is true. What you fail to include is the fact that NO officials lied to this mass of humanity and said the feds has set up a safe haven over the bridge, and told them to head that way. Presumeably to get the refugees out of the cops hair so the police could continue rescuing, deserting or looting.
There was no way black and white Gretna officials could cope with another flood and sent the refugees back to where the city state and feds would eventually set up evacuation points and safe havens.
I have no problem with this. The real racism is second gussing the people of Gretna La., survivors of a category 4 hurricane – forced to deal with not only the disaster area that once was their small community, but to also deal with the liars and jokesters from the Big Easy city hall.
This race baiting is a joke. The bottom line in this country is racism has fallen to a level of “normal” for a mixed race society. Blacks are just as racist as hispanics or whites.
To tie nominal racism to the “invisible poor” is also a stich. Most poor are white – black women earn more than white or hispanic women – blacks earn 90% of what whites do in this country and that’s slightly uneven because most blacks still live in the relative economic depression of the south.
I love the race hucksters trying to take advantage of Katrina like it’s some kind vail removed from a long forgotten plantation – the white masssa caught! holding a whip over his head looking coy while the black poor of NO cower in the fields.
This was a failure of an ideology and a people. And I’m not suprised that once again the people that hold those ideas are blind, paranoid and in denial.
Comment by Evan — September 19, 2005 @ 6:48 pm - September 19, 2005
#25
They just can’t admit that Katrina exposed the failure of Louisiana liberalism. Ask Patrick this:
If “everybody knew” the levees wouldn’t hold, why didn’t Blanco and Nagin try getting the folks out before the weekend or before other communities closed their bridges?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 19, 2005 @ 7:36 pm - September 19, 2005
#25 & #26 — I think what we’re seeing is the liberals making up another myth.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2005 @ 7:49 pm - September 19, 2005
#18 – That’s a great point, V. Any liberal who wants to pay more taxes can do it at any time. Let’s see Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. step up and do that.
Comment by joe — September 19, 2005 @ 10:34 pm - September 19, 2005
…and the circle jerk continues on at Gay Patriot.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 19, 2005 @ 10:43 pm - September 19, 2005
#18 & #28
I’m sure those who are so upset over “tax cuts for the wealthiest among us” just pay what the tax charts say based on their incomes, right? No deductions, no tax lawyers, no tax breaks? Otherwise, it’d be unfair of them.
But if they do itemize or otherwise take any tax breaks, whatever you do, don’t call them hypocritical…that label is reserved for someone who tells Leahy to go eff himself.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — September 19, 2005 @ 11:11 pm - September 19, 2005
you talk about Clinton? “Breaking the tradition of civility” that has lasted over 200 years? Ask yourself which is worse…”the tradition of civility”? Or trying to alter the Constitution to discriminate against a segment of the population for the first time in its history? I think we need to focus a little on what’s important… At least Bill is a gifted public speaker….I think W was sleeping during speech class.
Comment by bwaybaby — September 20, 2005 @ 2:01 am - September 20, 2005
and the Senate voted not to impeach Bill n Feb. 1999
Comment by bwaybaby — September 20, 2005 @ 2:05 am - September 20, 2005
bwaybaby #32-
You are mistaken. The word “impeach” does not mean what you think it means.
The House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton.
The Senate voted not to convict him — not to remove him from office.
Comment by Clint — September 20, 2005 @ 2:12 am - September 20, 2005
#31
Try to alter the constitution to discriminate for the first time in history? The Civil Rights Act has evolved again and again to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender.
I quite prefer Bush’s inability to hypnotize me with his oratory…it means the substance of a speech takes center stage. 6 million Jews agree; the mesmerizing public speaking ability of presidents (or chancellors) is highly overrated.
Comment by Evan — September 20, 2005 @ 2:51 am - September 20, 2005
Despite the blah-blah here, the point remains that a former President is criticising a current President, and GayPatriotWest doesn’t like it. He’s entitled to feel that way (even if his thinking is based on some past tradition that was long overdue to end) but I, for one, am glad to see Mr. Clinton taking a leadership role again; for we desperately need “some” leadership, and we’re not getting it from the current WH resident.
I actually liked much of what President Bush had to say in New Orleans last Thursday (yes, Queer Patriot, leans liberal, loon-watchers), and am sincerely surprised as it becomes clear that most other Americans were unpersuaded (cf, latest CNN poll, where his ratings — overall and on every issue — continue to plummet). Do the thinking heads here not recognize what should be easily apparent to even casual observers: that the public has lost confidence in this man? No? Could you be temporarily blinded by your partisanship?
I watch with amazement as these things occur: Nixon performing so poorly (and criminally) under the pressure of Watergate and the public noticed and abandoned him; Carter faltering under an energy crisis, economic pressures, and the Iran hostage drama and the public noticed and abandoned him; but Reagan using that marvelous humor and fine bearing to weather one crisis and scandal after another, and the public noticed and stood by him; Bush I, the hero with 91% approval one year and a gawky, disengaged performance the next amid economic pressures and a relentless two-prong (Clinton and Perot) attack and the public noticed and abandoned him; Clinton then with his own problems and the most vicious partisan attacks we have ever seen (including those today), yet he waded through it with (largely) a cheerful, upbeat demeanor (and the biggest boom economy of our lifetime), and the public noticed and stayed with him at the about the 60% level up til his final days in office. Lesson: keep your chin up and inspire and you’ll weather the usual attacks and most calamities.
Then, there’s Mr. Bush. He really only had two fine moments — one with a bullhorn atop rubble and the other a joint session speech focusing the nation on the need for the war in Afghanistan. But everything since has been a matter of minimum public faith getting him by and squeezing him through a very narrow re-election, and then watching as he’s exercised bad judgment after bad judgment (in the second term and past year, alone, there was that over-the-top inaugural speech, his campaign to destroy Social Security and that sad, unending parade of public appeals to hand-picked crowds, his having to face the fact of his misleadership on the Iraq War and Occupation issue, his inexplicable entry into the Congressional Schiavo debacle, his defiant insistence on so much vacation time, and now his inattention to the greatest natural disaster we’ve ever suffered). Now, the majority (58% at latest count) of the public have noticed all this, and while I would not crow as some Democrats are doing that “he’s done, stick a fork in him”, I do seriously doubt his ability to recover from what may be a fixed public perception of the man, and am thinking this may be the earliest lame duck in our history. There’s too much that’s “dark” about this man, and he doesn’t have the public appearance skills that could see him through it — a perpetual sneer (intended to impart rugged confidence) and gunslinger bearing (intended to make us think “tough cowboy”) does not make for an upbeat, inspiring President.
While I would have preferred he not been re-elected, he was and we need leadership. But, George W. Bush doesn’t have that in him and he’s running into problems that his formerly adept PR office can no longer gloss over. Since he’s proving incapable of providing leadership, any leadership at this point is appreciated. So, thank you President Clinton; thank you Senator McCain (for your advice on how to fund Katrina cleanup efforts); and thank you in advance for all of those other people with real leadership skills who are about to emerge in the vacuum of leadership in which we find ourselves.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 20, 2005 @ 7:48 am - September 20, 2005
QP-
Please.
Leadership involves proposing positive actions and then carrying them out. Criticizing others does not constitute leadership.
What former President Clinton has demonstrated is not leadership, but anklebiting.
Given the utter lack of any inclination toward any other form of “leadership” on the left these days, I can see how you might have been confused.
Comment by Clint — September 20, 2005 @ 11:42 am - September 20, 2005
No. 36, no confusion here. Much as I suspected from your breakout moment in a higher thread, you have nothing of substance to add to No. 35′s start of an honest conversation about the nation’s current lack of leadership. Your game appears to be one of simplistic partisan back and forth, not discussion, and sadly, you don’t possess any of the rhetorical skills of your beloved Mr. Hitchens.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 20, 2005 @ 12:08 pm - September 20, 2005
Clint, yes, you are correct. I was condensing my comments as the end result was he did not get impeached – removed from office – which is acceptable, albeit more base, usage of the word. I’m aware of the legal meaning, but didn’t know that we were throwing our PHD’s on the table.
Bill wasn’t removed from office only by a narrow margin, about the same margin that got W into office.
Comment by bwaybaby — September 20, 2005 @ 12:24 pm - September 20, 2005
oh, yeah, and Bill wasn’t tampering with the voting system.
Comment by bwaybaby — September 20, 2005 @ 12:26 pm - September 20, 2005
Hey bwybaby, congrats –you waited a bit before hoisting the “hanging chads-he stole the election” nonsense back up the flagpole.
I agree with Clint –leadership is more than SlickWilly uttering lies before a friendly, patsy journalist or former staffer. And anyone who thinks SlickWilly was a leader is shooting blanks between the ears. He’s the only former Prez to steal furniture and artwork while exiting in disgrace from the WH –now there’s leadership and character, eh? And we can entirley skip the discussion about leadership via issue polling and triangulation… lol. Oh yeah, he’s a model modern president alright.
I say: “Hell yes!” Let him go to the UN as Secry Gen… he can help advance corruption on a worldwide scale, lose a tear over intern’l poverty and disease and 3rd world slaughter, and still make it back to Manhattan to get his $5000 suits tailored. “Oh, the humanity. The humanity!”, he cried in mock outrage. Which was followed by “What’s in it for me?”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 20, 2005 @ 12:54 pm - September 20, 2005
I’d say No. 40 doesn’t have the typical Patriot’s respect for our former President.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 20, 2005 @ 6:30 pm - September 20, 2005
Nope QP, it isn’t limited to the Slick-ster. I just dislike revisionist politicians trying to rewrite history… ala RNixon, JFK’s army of sycophants and apologists, or even Jimminy Cricket Carter’s moralistic posturing after his failure as president. In my world, QP, respect is earned –it isn’t given to politicians just because they’re from “my” party and isn’t denied because the politician is not from “my” party. Some advice: quit being a lapdog for the Left and think once in a while… your “failed leadership” rant leaves reality an orphan in the dooryard.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 21, 2005 @ 9:02 am - September 21, 2005
Hows about a little test of your bi-partisan patriotism?
You DON’T respect former Presidents Clinton, Carter, JFK, and Nixon. So which former Presidents DO you respect? Assuming you’re not age 100+, you’re left with these relatively recent former Presidents…
Bush II — Republican
Bush I — Republican
Reagan — Republican
Ford — Republican
LBJ — Democrat
Eisenhower — Republican
Truman — Democrat
FDR — Democrat
Which of those DO you respect, bi-partisan Patriot?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 6:08 pm - September 21, 2005
I cast my vote for Ford. Loved him. I was a Democrat for Ford and I still think that his second term would have been better than Carter’s only.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 6:34 pm - September 21, 2005
And that cute son, Jack? Whatever happened to him? Lovely boy.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 9:48 pm - September 21, 2005
Wonder where our bi-partisan Patriot went off to? He was so working this topic until…
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 9:49 pm - September 21, 2005
Probably the same place you went after I posted this.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2005 @ 11:33 pm - September 22, 2005
#47
To the shower to remove the thin veil of filth?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 23, 2005 @ 1:56 pm - September 23, 2005
GayPatriot locations for 200, Alex.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 23, 2005 @ 1:57 pm - September 23, 2005
Thirty, you link to your own posts a lot as if to prove you’ve somehow emerged victorious in an argument, knowing all the while that no one will spend their time trying to figure out the linked issue. This is a cheap little tactic, which fits nicely with what I’m seeing of you here — someone who claims (on a gay website) that they’re ardently gay, yet also tries to convince others here that being gay is just a matter of choice.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 24, 2005 @ 8:34 am - September 24, 2005