Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.


It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.


But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.


(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com)

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Will McCain Swing for the Fences?

As we finally enter the homestretch of the 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama should probably have a 5- to 10-point lead in the polls, but instead finds himself effectively tied with (or even trailing) John McCain. In generic poll after generic poll, Democrats are decisively favored over Republicans, yet for some reason, Obama lags. The Obama Campaign knows this, is nervous about it, and their anxiety has started to show. In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama made a tacit admission that a bolstering of his experience and qualifications – particularly with regard to foreign policy – was necessary. Biden is not likely to do any harm for Obama’s chances, particularly given that I would expect the Obama Campaign to have him speak only on a scripted basis to avoid his infamous propensity to put his foot in his mouth. On the other hand, it’s difficult to make the argument that choosing Biden will help much either. Would a president and vice president who were both sitting senators – Biden for 35 years – really represent a departure from the “same old Washington politics”? Does that truly represent change?

Switching gears, John McCain made a colossal mistake last week. Just at the moment when he seemed to truly be gaining some momentum, he committed a gaffe that will likely haunt him all the way until Election Day. Asked by two reporters from Politico.com how many houses he and his wife own, McCain offered the following answer:
“I think – I’ll have my staff get to you – It’s condominiums where – I’ll have them get to you”.
Wow. That one hurt. In McCain’s defense, were one to take the time to try to understand the reason he could not provide a clear answer (namely that there are properties owned by his wife’s family trust of which he may not be aware and probably cannot actually be considered an owner), it becomes easier to understand his hesitation or inability to answer the question. Unfortunately for McCain, no one is going to take that time. The national media certainly won’t, though were Obama to commit a similar mistake I feel confident his fourth estate admirers would quickly come to his rescue. No, regardless of the nuances or complexities that led to his non-answer, the narrative has been established that John McCain is so “rich” and so “out of touch” that he cannot even keep track of how many houses he and his wife have. In a time of economic weakness – especially when the housing market is bearing much of the brunt – this is the type of answer that loses elections.

Meanwhile, back at the Democratic Convention, Monday night was initially billed as Michelle Obama’s time to shine. This changed slightly when Ted Kennedy – “’lion’ of the Senate” – opted to make the trip to Denver, and then further, to address the convention. It is truly sad that Kennedy is gravely ill with a terrible disease I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But can the Democratic Party and the media spare me some of the sycophantic coverage of the “heroic” Kennedy making the “courageous” journey “against medical advice” to “summon the strength” to speak in order to symbolically “pass the torch” to Barack Obama? As John McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk, my friends. To the extent that Ted Kennedy was ever worthy of holding the same torch as either of his late brothers, that torch was extinguished by the water underneath Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick in 1969 – along with the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. I couldn’t help but wonder if Chris Matthews was aware of the irony when he said on MSNBC Monday night:
“He’s a sentimental guy, whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, and he looks out for other people”.
Really?

Speaking of Democratic political giants prone to moral failings, when Bill Clinton addresses the convention on Wednesday night, many in the Obama Campaign will be watching nervously to see just how warm or sincere he seems in his support of Obama. Already controversy has surfaced over the former president’s reported displeasure at being scheduled to speak on a night the DNC has themed “Securing America’s Future”. Apparently “The Man from Hope” would much rather speak on economic issues and is bitter about a missed opportunity to do what he loves most: talk about himself. Obviously Clinton believes the economic strength of the 1990’s is his best chance for a lasting legacy not involving the name “Monica”, and it’s a safe bet that the narcissist-in-chief will say as little about Obama as he thinks he can get away with, attempting instead to better his own political standing first and foremost, and if he has extra time, that of his wife too. I remain puzzled that Obama did not dispatch with both Clintons on the convention’s first night, much as McCain is smartly doing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Day One of the GOP Convention. The Clintons and the ever-present melodrama in their wake pose a real threat to distract from one of the Obama Campaign’s best opportunities to introduce their candidate to the nation on their terms. And the Clintons wouldn’t have it any other way.

Looking ahead to Thursday night, Obama is slated for his own star turn. Rather than address the convention in the convention hall as is traditionally done, he and his campaign have opted instead to use neighboring Invesco Field (home of the Denver Broncos) so that “The One” can make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 adoring disciples. I predict that, like his “premature victory lap” in Europe, the Obama Campaign may come to regret sensationalizing and over-hyping what is almost certainly the most important speech any presidential candidate ever gives in the course of a presidential campaign. American voters get it by now. We understand that people literally faint at his rallies, that it’s “cool” to support Obama, and even a Republican like me can’t help but find the Illinois Senator awfully likeable at times on the surface. What American voters may not get, however, is just precisely what is in store for us if Obama becomes president. It seems unlikely we’ll learn much more on Thursday, as a speech in an outdoor stadium to such an enormous crowd is not a setting that lends itself to a serious and sober discussion of what specifically Obama plans to do as president. In making this choice, the Obama team will only perpetuate the very negatives so aptly pointed out in McCain’s “Celeb” ad. Hope and change are wearing thin, and “I’m not George W. Bush” is in and of itself not sufficient rationale for being elected to the highest office in the land. Voters want a president, not a rock star.

With back-to-back party conventions likely nullifying the usual post-convention “bounce” in the polls, there’s a great chance that the fall campaign will officially begin in a deadlock. John McCain is likely to name his running mate any day now, and the Republican Convention begins next week. McCain needs a game-changer to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama, and he has a remarkable opportunity for just that after Obama’s bland, status quo choice of Biden. The how-many-houses gaffe should effectively eliminate Mitt Romney as a potential vice president for McCain, because having an honest-to-God multi-millionaire join the ticket with a man now being portrayed as fabulously wealthy and aloof would make the Obama Campaign’s ads too easy. On the other hand, an argument could be made that McCain’s misstep last week boosts Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s chances given his bona fide blue collar background, but in many ways, Pawlenty represents the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either. McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Each has pros and cons to be sure, but unlike Obama, McCain’s vast experience affords him more leeway to swing for the fences in selecting his running mate. If he wants to win in November, he may have to do just that.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Can Obama Close the Deal?

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. An argument can be made however, that the trip was a mistake, and that in fact, it marked a turning point in the campaign at which McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. Have the last few weeks simply been bumps in the road for the usually brilliant Obama Campaign, or do they portend the beginning of a McCain resurgence?

Obamamania reached fever pitch in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and lastly to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to hop the pond, generally enjoying leads in the polls of anywhere from 6 to 10 points. As a Republican, I was admittedly nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a very presidential feel to it – certainly by design – and while I was apprehensive about the Obama Campaign’s ability to help the voters envision a President Obama, it now appears they may have overplayed their hand. The bottom line is that the trip was over-the-top. No presidential candidate has ever attempted such a bold maneuver during the campaign. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama Campaign staffers in Freudian slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. Then, of course, there was the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, a second-choice venue after the campaigns request to use the Brandenburg Gate – site of JFK’s and Ronald Reagan’s famous presidential speeches – was denied. Tens of thousands did indeed turn out to hear Obama’s speech, one in which he proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” and that included lines such as “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.” This line epitomized the hubristic nature of the entire trip, and ultimately, I believe many Americans were put-off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain Campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” I think the Obama Campaign recognized this too, evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a “bump” in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from John McCain and his campaign. First there was the now well-known “Celeb” ad released by McCain, comparing Obama and his fame to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. While many in the media echoed the Obama Campaign’s response that the ad was silly or juvenile, McCain surrogate and friend, Senator Lindsay Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose, and likely the reason for its subsequent effectiveness. When asked about it, Graham said the primary theme of the ad was, "fame without portfolio. [There is this] hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there. So fame without portfolio is sort of fashionable. But leadership without experience is dangerous." This ad represented one of the deftest moves to date by McCain and his campaign. By using Hilton and Spears in the ad, attention was guaranteed, but more importantly, they used that attention to shrewdly call attention to a key argument of theirs that Obama is the proverbial “empty suit”. The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One”, poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on fervor of religious proportions.

And the hits kept coming. Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and opined as to the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” The McCain Campaign reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which it seems obvious was the case. In a slow pre-Olympics news cycle, this was the primary story for several days, eventually forcing Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to respond. When he did so, his explanation of the Senator’s comments was laughable. “What [Obama] was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs claimed, though most saw through this feeble defense and recognized Obama’s comments for what they were. Obama had used a similar line before, but the irony was that neither McCain nor the RNC, (or anyone else affiliated with either) have ever made comments or claims like those Obama referenced. Doing so, they realize, would be extremely unwise politically, and so the McCain campaign was very wise to promptly call Obama out on his ploy, as doing so was the best way to prevent him from trying a similar, racially-tinged maneuver later in the campaign.

Obama’s late summer of discontent was still not over yet, though. Towards the end of July and first part of August, stories began to surface about Democratic “nervousness” about Obama’s apparent inability to “close the deal” against McCain. Generic polls show the American public decisively favoring Democrats this election year, yet the party’s nominee was finding himself in essentially a statistical tie with McCain in the polls. There was chatter about the party having “buyer’s remorse” in selecting Obama over Hillary Clinton. Exacerbating this was Obama’s curious decision last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party behind Obama, the argument can be made that it will do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of hardcore Hillary supporters such as the so-called P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass") group who still are extremely reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband too. It’s inconceivable that this subplot and the almost certain drama that will follow won’t distract from the Democratic Party’s “official” introduction of Obama to the nation. Further, Obama’s acquiescence to the Clinton’s demands prolongs some of the doubts many Democrats may have about him, and calls into question his willingness or ability to take a stand for himself.

Barack’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at Saddleback Church in California. Both candidates appeared there for the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of the very popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, telling Pastor Rick “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”. Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have an informed opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s. McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and likeable, and he was as forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. On issue after issue, McCain gave answers that seemed to have far greater depth than those of his relatively inexperienced opponent. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I actively felt enthusiastic about John McCain, Republican Nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience – both political experience and life experience – was impossible to miss. The Obama Campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months – none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally – perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect Obama would be in serious trouble by now.

And maybe he is. In a bit of shocker, a Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows McCain with a 5-point lead over Obama -- a 12-point shift in the Arizona Senator's favor from July, when Obama led by as many as 7 points. In reality, the polls fluctuate frequently, but it's obvious that this race is very close – probably tied or with Obama leading very slightly. So perhaps Democrats should be nervous, and maybe there is just cause for buyer’s remorse. After all, as the stakes increasingly rise and the spotlight progressively brightens, it seems as though Obama and his campaign are more frequently failing to rise to the occasion. But as much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. The Obama Campaign realizes this, and the primary reason the Obama campaign leaked news of an impending vice presidential selection yesterday was almost certainly to place the focus back on their candidate, on a new story, and to return to some of the excitement and energy surrounding Obama that they have used to such great effect throughout this election year. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama and his campaign begin to again rise to the occasion? Can he close the deal?

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Monday, April 7, 2008

None of Our Business ???

By now, almost everyone has heard about the two uncomfortable encounters that Chelsea Clinton has had on the campaign trail over the last few weeks.

The first instance was at Butler University in Indianapolis two weeks ago as Chelsea made another of the many college campus appearances she has made in the last few months on behalf of her mother, Senator Hillary Clinton, and her presidential campaign. While taking questions from the audience of college students, Chelsea was asked by Butler student Evan Strange – a Clinton supporter – whether Hillary’s handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that engulfed Bill Clinton’s administration had damaged her mother’s credibility. Chelsea appeared taken aback by the question, responding:

“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business”.
(Here's the clip if you'd like to watch for yourself):


Not surprisingly given the media attention Strange’s question received, another college student made a similar attempt early last week. At North Carolina State University in Raleigh last Monday, N.C. State student Bryce Davis asked Miss Clinton essentially the same question. Chelsea’s response was likewise similar, dismissing Davis by telling him, “It’s none of your business”. Davis disagreed, however, and pressed on, indicating that he felt it was, in fact, his business given that Bill Clinton – Chelsea’s father and Hillary’s husband – was President of the United States when the scandal unfolded. Chelsea was unconvinced, however, and stuck to her guns:

“Well sir, I respectfully disagree. I think that is something that is personal to my family and I’m sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don’t think are anyone’s business either”.
(Again, here's the clip if you'd like to see and hear it):

Let me first express my sympathy for any child who has to observe and endure significant marital problems between his or her parents, particularly when those problems involve something as painful and destructive as adultery. In many ways, I have even more sympathy for Chelsea Clinton given that she had to observe and endure her parents’ issues along with the rest of the world.

With that said, if Hillary Clinton (presumably with Bill Clinton’s knowledge and approval) is going to use her daughter as a campaign surrogate and expect her to be able to answer complex questions about the details of Hillary’s health care plan, for example, how can Chelsea not be expected to address an issue that, while undoubtedly painful and arguably private to her, was certainly not private by conventional standards? If the same parents who so admirably protected Chelsea during their White House years are now willing to use Chelsea as the political asset she appears to be, that bubble of protection that has previously surrounded her no longer applies, and therefore no question, whether it be about health care, foreign policy, or even the Lewinsky scandal, should be off-limits.

Further, it is my belief that Davis was correct. While what her father did with Lewinsky may have been “personal to [her] family” for Chelsea, he did it on government property and on government time. The American people elected Clinton to run the country, not to run around on his wife. In addition, by lying to the people (not to mention perjuring himself under oath) and by sending his wife – now presidential candidate Clinton – out to propagate that lie, Bill made it our business.

For Hillary’s part, how can she claim to have “over sixteen years of experience”, thereby including her time as First Lady, but then expect that she and her campaign can pick and choose the aspects of those sixteen years that they wish to be considered? In this respect, Strange was correct, because he was almost certainly referring principally to Hillary’s infamous appearance on NBC’s The Today Show in the first days of the Lewinsky scandal. After spending the first part of her interview with Matt Lauer dodging questions and denying the accusations that her husband had engaged in and lied about an affair with Lewinsky, Hillary made the following comment:

“This is – the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it – is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president”.
As we now know, and as I feel certain she knew then, the allegations were true, and regardless of the existence of any “vast right-wing conspiracy”, Hillary was joining with her husband in an effort to mislead the American people to secure his (and her) political survival. How, then, can her credibility not be an issue – a question only underscored by her recent admission that she “misspoke” about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia in 1996?

Perhaps if Hillary (and Bill) didn’t have a consistent record of misleading statements, the questions posed to Chelsea would be irrelevant and would be “none of [our] business”. Perhaps if Hillary had said to Matt Lauer that day, “It’s none of your business”, Chelsea could now rightfully do the same. She did not, however, and Chelsea cannot either.



Note: Recently I was asked to contribute a weekly column on a new website called Splice Today. My first effort -- this very post -- was posted on Friday. Please visit Splice if you have a moment (http://splicetoday.com/), not only to check out my weekly piece, but also for the other thoughtful writing and commentary that can be found there. My Splice column will be political in nature every other week at most. (I'll keep the majority of the political commentary here at Bragging Writes).


Thursday, January 17, 2008

10 Years Ago Today...

On the evening of January 17th, 1998, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame posted the headline that ultimately made he and his website famous:
"NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
X X X X X
BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT"
The headline also marked the start of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which would dominate the media for the next year and ultimately lead to the impeachment of President Clinton. Regardless of your views on the Lewinsky matter, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, I think you'll have to admit that this is a pretty clever bumper sticker, and it's how "Bragging Writes" will commemorate the ten-year "anniversary" of perhaps the biggest media feeding frenzy ever...