Christopher Hitchens recounts Clinton's race-baiting history and poses this puzzle:
I have to say that Bob Herbert shocked even me by quoting Andrew Young, who said that his pal Clinton was "every bit as black as Barack" because he'd screwed more black chicks.
By my quick calculation Magic Johnson must be even whiter than me.
Dude. I'm not comfortable with this post. You've been on a serious roll lately, but an intervention might be in order.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2008 at 09:24 PM
whiter THAN I (I think)
Posted by: Clarice | January 28, 2008 at 09:37 PM
You're not helping, Clarice.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2008 at 09:39 PM
I'm not even sure I get it. Perhaps in the morning.
Posted by: Jane | January 28, 2008 at 09:41 PM
Wilt the Whitie.
========
Posted by: kim | January 28, 2008 at 09:45 PM
How white does that make Wilt?
Posted by: Other Tom | January 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Rather than talk about cuckoo sexual stuff--Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick alone give us all we need to ponder on that score--let us exult in the following excoriation of Bubba by no less a progressive nut case than Ralph Nader himself:
"He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election.
He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.
"Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.
"A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay."
May we be excused for strutting about the living room in an ecstatic state of gloating triumph? Watching this bloodletting is more fun than the Iran-Iraq war.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 28, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Don't know about MORE fun than the war,OT. I recall when we stopped because of a truly Biblical sandstorm and the press creeps were playing taps for the US troops.
Posted by: Clarice | January 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM
It means Andrew Young has his cranium implanted in his rectum.
Posted by: MikeS | January 28, 2008 at 11:57 PM
And Bill Clinton has syphilis of the soul.
Posted by: glasater | January 29, 2008 at 12:22 AM
By my calculations I'm a mirage, dammit...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | January 29, 2008 at 01:14 AM
I forgot to make predictions for the Democrats in SC. Consequently, I made no serious errors of prognostication. I would hate to make a habit of that.
Republicans....................Democrats
1. Mitt Romney 34.2%.....1. Hillary Clinton 45.3%
2. John McCain 31.8%.....2. Barack Obama 31.4%
3. Rudy Giuliani 14.8%....3. Mike Huckabee 13.7%
--------------------...........4. John Edwards 10.9%
Posted by: Elliott | January 29, 2008 at 04:41 AM
If you need help with your vote, not your math, Don Surber suggests the Vote Chooser. If you don't like the questions, of course, you probably don't need the advice. It told me to vote for Romney. I thought about seeing what kind of answers get you McCain, but I couldn't find a Constitution question.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 29, 2008 at 06:22 AM
Did Gore go to China?
==============
Posted by: kim | January 29, 2008 at 06:42 AM
Okay, the polls are open in Florida. (According to Mr. Right there is no evidence in the morning commute.)
Get crackin'!
Posted by: Jane | January 29, 2008 at 08:37 AM
Some things are best left unsaid.
Posted by: MarkD | January 29, 2008 at 09:32 AM
For those who "don't get it", our dear leader is being funny. I hope. Really. Seriously.
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Well, at least we know who Maguire DOESN'T
like.
When will you tell us your choice for 2008?
Posted by: Semanticleo | January 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Elliot,
I don't think Huckabee will beat Edwards by that much.
McCain 34
Romney 36
Obama 36
RW 40
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Hmm, durable order increases were double ""economist's"" expectations in December.
We better keep debating whether throwing money at fat slackers more money will cause them to gain even more weight. Can't lose sight of what's important.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM
throwing money at fat slackers
more moneyNot a good start.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM
For those who "don't get it"
Sue,
It was the white/black thing I couldn't reconcile. Don't worry, I had Amy explain it to me. (As if she knows)
Posted by: Jane | January 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I got it. I think it's funny. I wanna get out of here. Fast. LOL
Posted by: Syl | January 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Clarice, I was talking about the war between Iran and Iraq. I wouldn't want to describe our war in Iraq as "fun," although the press coverage of it has been a side-splitter from day one and still is.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 29, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Say what you want about Magic. He's paying the price for his promiscuous behavior. And he's among the top 7 or 8 for best roundball player ever.
Posted by: Larry | January 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM
fat slackers
From some comments in another thread about the shenanigans that go on with food stamps, I realized that the 'fat slackers' have all the same impulses as the revered venture capitalists, they merely have fewer resources to play with.
Therefore I now look upon the 'fat slackers' with a bit of awe and admiration.
My biggest flaw, I've discovered, is that I don't know how to play and have no desire to learn. I've just lived my life, made some good choices, some bad choices, have accepted the consequences of all of them. I have no assets, but no debt either. And I'm happy.
That last is a huge accomplishment.
I certainly don't fit the conservative demographic, but then I've never claimed to be a conservative. Especially if that means labeling thousands of my fellow citizens as 'fat slackers'.
Posted by: Syl | January 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM
LOL. Okay. I read Larry and say, Majic? What does Majic have to do with it? So, before I pop off I go up and re-read and crap. I see Majic is the topic, not Chamberlain, as in Wilt Chamberlain. So, I guess I don't really "get it" either. I'm not sure how I read Majic the first time around and thought Chamberlain. I do know they aren't the same person, even if they had the same...damn...last...name...which they don't.
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
A refusal to distinguish between the helpless poor (historically, 5-6% of every population) and the hapless poor means that the helpless are deprived of resources in order to support fat slackers because resources have not as yet become infinite. When the issue of concern is whether dumping more resources on the hapless will just encourage them to become more obese, we've reached a point of absurdity that demands ridcule, rather than just inviting it.
We would be much better off building the infamous "Bridges to Nowhere", which would, in fact, employ people in work (albeit, not tremendously productive work), than simply allowing the Dems to purchase more votes in their warrens.
One may choose to refer to an object as a "personal manual excavating implement" but it's still a
spadeshovel.Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Hillary to announce "major" endorsement at 1 p.m. Eastern. Jimmy Carter?
And in the space of two or three weeks, has Bubba displaced Jimmy as the worst ex-president in history?
Posted by: Other Tom | January 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
OT, I understand it's a "tribal" endorsement.
Posted by: Clarice | January 29, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Clarice,
What does that mean?
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Obama and even Ted Kennedy came out against "Old Style" (read Clinton Style) politics.
I'm not willing to cede that issue to Obama. Nobody is against Clinton Style politics more than I am.
More, I don't want to allow Obama to define the Clinton Style Politics as the politics of division, distraction, and drama, when I think it was the politics of division, distortion, and hate.
Posted by: MikeS | January 29, 2008 at 12:33 PM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/29/617834.aspx>Clinton endorsement
Maxine Waters, according to MSNBC
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM
A refusal to distinguish between the helpless poor (historically, 5-6% of every population) and the hapless poor....
Who is refusing to make the distinction? Huh? Mention food stamps around here and the pavlovian response begins!
Never fear, though. The ideologues won't rest until they have removed every fat slacker from society.
(FYI and I don't even know why I'm bothering to say this. I'm not in a good place, but I have never taken anything from the govt including food stamps. I paid all my student loans on time and in full.)
I know the principles of which you speak. It's the zero-tolerance for any deviation that bothers me so much.
If Reagan were running in the primaries today he wouldn't be nominated because he raised taxes in California. What the heck is going on with this hunt for utopian perfection? The club for growth would be on Reagan's case with attack ads all over the airwaves!
Posted by: Syl | January 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Other Tom, I think the George Will formulation still holds - Bill is not the worst ex-President in history, but he is the worst person ever to have been President. He is of the lowest imaginable character, but he can't eclipse Jimmah's noxious activities as a foreign affairs buttinsky.
But Jimmah's got a 20-year jump on him - I fully expect Bill will catch up.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/29/617834.aspx>MSNBC link.
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Well, Rush is saying Waters is not "the" endorsement. Rush is saying Bill Richardson.
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
He said some Indian tribe(s) will be endorsing her this afternoon. Richardson is just speculation as the next one she'll rope into the endorsement game.
Posted by: Clarice | January 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Indian tribes? How is that going to help?
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Jim Geraghty says the only major endorsement remaining is that of Al Gore. What are the chances he would endorse Hillary? What are the chances I will leap into interstellar space this afternoon?
Posted by: Other Tom | January 29, 2008 at 01:10 PM
"He's paying the price for his promiscuous behavior. And he's among the top 7 or 8 for best roundball player ever."
Please!!!
Posted by: PeterUK | January 29, 2008 at 01:24 PM
BTW,For one glorious moment I read Chamberlain as Neville.Now that would have been a good excuse.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 29, 2008 at 01:27 PM
OT, I understand it's a "tribal" endorsement.
There are some high-profile tribes here in CA. Agua Caliente sponsors NPR, and the Pechangas seem quite politically involved. It could be a CA tribe, although she hardly needs a CA endorsement right now. She's going to kill here.
Posted by: MayBee | January 29, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Somehow I don't see Wilt practicing appeasement. More a Winston Churchill typw, I think
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | January 29, 2008 at 01:35 PM
No one Hil could dupe into endorsing her is going to top yesterday's dog and pony show for Obama.
Bill has blown it for her Big Time!. Imagine Kennedy calling Bill instead of Hil to tell about endorsing Obama. And then to make matters worse she's got to climb over the aisle and Kiss up to Kennedy at the SOTU. Talk about a major diss... She has only herself and her Wild Bill husband to blame.
Posted by: maryrose | January 29, 2008 at 01:38 PM
I have to write Florence King again. She wrote in 1993 how Bill HAD TO sabotage his wife.
No one has ever had their number better and she caught on quicker to them than anyone.
Posted by: Clarice | January 29, 2008 at 01:58 PM
I have to write Florence King again. She wrote in 1993 how Bill HAD TO sabotage his wife.
clarice- you were the first person I read that said that, and I've since heard it often. It is so interesting.
Posted by: MayBee | January 29, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I'm listening to Rush who is playing a series of song parodies on McCain..HEH
Posted by: Clarice | January 29, 2008 at 02:44 PM
How furious do you think Hillary is with the choice to give an Obama-endorser the SOTU rebuttal?
Posted by: MayBee | January 29, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Last year at the regional big time rodeo--the local Indian Pageant entering the arena did not carry the American flag in. They always have in the past. Canada was represented along with the various tribes' flags. It must have been some type of protest on the war in Iraq.
Regarding foodstamps--with the wealth of this country--no one should go hungry. I'm all for expanding the program if it helps people. And it is such a small part of the over all budget.
Posted by: glasater | January 29, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Clarice:
Does not surprise me Florence King would have Bill nailed. Her book, Southern Ladies and Gentlemen, (a favorite book of my wife -- Appalled Dixie Progressive) pretty much has apt description of the various types one finds down here. And Clinton is a classic Southern type. I'm sure he's in Faulkner somewhere.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | January 29, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Absolutely, AM-She begins "Bill Clinton"Masobear" with this gem:"Southerners are the only Anglo-Saxon Protestants who have to worry about 'the ones who give us a bad name.'"But she says only his foundness for food and talking mark him as a Southerner--that otherwise he is an anomaly
Posted by: Clarice | January 29, 2008 at 04:02 PM
"I'm sure he's in Faulkner somewhere."
Faulkner didn't trace the Snopes' byblows. I believe Bubba to be Flem's illegitimate grandson.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2008 at 04:10 PM
AM and Rick,
The idea of Clinton as a Faulkner character got me thinking. I googled around to see if anyone else had discussed it before and found this. According to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, writing in 1999 in Salon, Bill Clinton can recite from memory Benjy's monologue in The Sound and the Fury.
Given that the character of Benjy is mentally retarded, castrated (after making sexual advances to a young girl), and obsessed with his promiscuous sister Caddy - and his monologue is famously difficult and can't be easy to memorize - I found this truly bizarre.
Monologue here: April 7, 1928
Does anyone remember reading this Salon piece at the time? Btw, the rest of the article is a revolting defense of Bubba against his "Puritan" right-wing adversaries. Reminds me of why I dislike Garcia Marquez.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 29, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Sorry, first link didn't work - here's the Salon piece again:
The Mysteries of Bill Clinton
Posted by: Porchlight | January 29, 2008 at 05:14 PM
I don't think we need to worry about 20 years of Bill. He's not aging well, and it's his lifestyle that is doing it to him.
Bush seems worn down by the stress of the job, but I think he's more stable.
I'm beginning to think one six year term for president might be better for the person, if not the country.
Posted by: MarkD | January 30, 2008 at 08:41 AM