Should Bill Chill?

I don’t have much respect for Bill Clinton’s taste in women, either the one he married or the ones he chose to fool around with. Surely somebody with the chick-magnet potential of the Presidency could have done better than Monica Lewinsky. But he was a pretty damn good President. And he got to be President by being a political genius. And that ingenuity continues to work its magic. While I haven’t quite been won over, the persuasuive Mr. Clinton is coming damn close to persuading me that the witch he married would be a less undesirable presidential candidate than Barack Obama. Of course, he’s not doing that all by himself. He’s getting substantial assistance, mainly from Mr. Obama and his supporters.

Congressman Jim Clyburn says the former prez “needs to chill a little bit” in his criticism of Saint Barack. Apparently he’s miffed by Clinton calling Obama’s description of his Iraq war opposition a “fairy tale”. I’m not sure exactly why Clyburn has a problem with that. It’s a far more polite term than I would have used for the load of bullshit that Obama’s followers keep hungrily swallowing, but Clinton wisely chose his words a little more carefully. What’s wrong with calling a lie a fairy tale? Apparently, if you’re drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, you don’t want to be told it’s poison, even if it is.

Of course, Madame Clinton’s own record on Iraq isn’t any better than The Mighty O’s. And the way she tries to dance around it while steadfastly refusing to apologize for it is one of the strongest reasons I have opposed her. But I’m beginning to think that her arrogance isn’t as bad as Obama’s baldface lying. And then Obama has the nerve to accuse Clinton of “misrepresenting” his record on Iraq. But careful readers will notice that he has never bothered to explain just exactly how Clinton has misrepresented it. That’s because the only misrepresentation is coming from Obama himself. And if the media would get off their fat butts and ask him to explain his remarks, he would be in deep shit.

And, as if voting in lockstep with Republicans on the Iraq war (and the Patriot act, and other Republican assaults on the Constitution) wasn’t enough, now Saint Barack is trying to don the mantle of that great Republican saint, Ronald Reagan. It’s bad enough having all the Republican candidates claiming to be Regan reincarnated, now we have a pseudo-Democrat pontificating on how Reagan “changed the trajectory” of the nation. Paul Krugman did a very good job of dissecting that load of crap in his recent NY Times op-ed, in which he concludes

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

And, speaking of Krugman and his well-thought analysis of the candidates’ platforms, he wrote a pretty good description of their responses to the threat of recession. And once again, when you pull aside the magic curtain, Obama seems a little short, as he points out:

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

“Tilted to the right” is probably not what most people would expect to hear about Obama compared to Clinton. But maybe that’s just because people are so busy chanting “Change Change Change” that they don’t have time to look at what Obama really stands for. Or maybe, like myself, they’ve convinced themselves that almost any other Democrat would be preferable to the evil Hillary, and don’t want to look too closely lest they be proven wrong.Yet somehow, for some reason, people seem to think it’s unfair for the Clintons to discuss any of this. And that attitude is precisely what’s driving me back toward Hillary’s camp. I know they’re both flawed. I just resent Obama and his apostles insisting that he’s perfect, and that any discussion of his imperfections is therefore not allowed.

The former prez just has one major disadvantage in his campaign to make me like his wife: his wife. Damn near every time Obama or one of his droids opens his mouth, Hillary seems a little better. Then she opens hers. Since I spent part of today in activities honoring one of this country’s truly great leaders, Martin Luther King, let’s consider the recent controversy over Ms. Clinton’s somewhat awkward comments when Obama had the nerve to compare himself to MLK and JFK. It may have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but she still screwed up. She just plain shouldn’t have said anything that seemed to be downplaying King’s contributions. It ain’t right, and it ain’t good politics. Instead, she should have borrowed a famous line from Lloyd Bentsen and told Obama “You’re no Martin Luther King.” It might have irritated some people, but it wouldn’t have flopped as badly as the comments she did make, and I think it would have scored her some points with a few voters, at least with this one.

So I hope Bill doesn’t chill. I hope he keeps the heat on Obama, because I think the people supporting him at least need to acknowledge his flaws, which most of them are unwilling to do. And, if enough of them start to ask themselves just what it is they like about this guy, aside from the fact that he’s not Hillary, they might start to shift their allegiances. I don’t know whether that’s good or not. I think I still want to see Hillary get her ass kicked, because she irritates me. But it’s getting to the point where I think I want to see Obama get his ass kicked even harder, because I hate all the snake oil he’s selling. And unfortunately, it’s beginning to look like there’s only one woman capable of delivering that ass-kicking (with a little help from her husband, even if that makes me sound chauvinistic).

Quick additition:
After writing the above, I read a brief account of John Edwards’ performance in tonight’s debate, in which (at least according to the reporters), he managed to look good. I had to laugh at his complaint: “Are there three people in this debate, not two?” Since he previously wanted to shut the “irrelevant” candidates like Kucinich out of the debates, I’m tempted to say “What goes around … “. But I still think he seems like a more appealing candidate than either Clinton or Obama (even if Dennis doesn’t agree with me on that). I would like to see him kick both their asses, which I had thought was very unlikely. But if he gains some ground in South Carolina, maybe that’s not so far-fetched. Of course, I’d still much rather see Kucinich kick all their asses, but I have to admit that is pretty far-fetched.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *