Ex-prez won't leave the stage

the Boston Herald ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Rachelle G. Cohen

[presidio9]

Half the people came to worship Bill Clinton. The other half came to see if the old guy really still ``had the juice'' and the former president, who always seems to crave adulation, needed to win them all over.

And he's good, dammit, really good. Who else could make eye contact with several hundred people for a couple of hours during a speech and ``conversation'' at the John F. Kennedy Library Wednesday.

``It's amazing how he does that,'' said one young woman. ``I would swear he was looking right at me.''

He was lean (what, are there no McDonald's in Chappaqua?) and he was loose (``I don't care, I'm not runnin' for anything,'' he said and then proceeded to crack wise and say of the 2000 election results, ``At least it gave our Supreme Court a rare opportunity to stand up for minority rights.'')

But the man who once convinced the better part of this nation that he felt their pain wanted his audience to feel just a little of his own in his post-presidential phase.

In answer to a question from historian Michael Beschloss, Clinton said, ``I think I was well suited to the times in which I served because I have a high pain threshold. . . Because of my upbringing I had a particular tolerance for it.''

And while he conceded it was probably OK for historians and biographers to poke around in the private lives of presidents, especially long after they're gone, he added, there's a ``big difference if you have to deal every day with those trying to turn a public person into a private pinata.''

Well, pinata-boy is doin' OK these days. Sure, he misses the perks and he misses the work (``I loved being president,'' he said.), but he added, ``I think I was surprised at how happy I was to have my life back.''

Yeah, we know where we could go with a statement like that, but Clinton clarified that it meant hanging out in the local coffee shop in Chappaqua with the regulars. Whatever. . .

And even Clinton noted that financially he was doin' just fine, thank you very much. Of course, he did so in the context of arguing against the tax cut that President Bush was signing into law that day.

You just can't keep an old triangulator from triangulating, so Clinton beat up on the Republicans ``for whom tax cuts are ideological, almost theological.'' He called this particular one ``grossly unfair'' because it gave some money back to ``rich people'' like him and because ``these tax cuts are too small in the short run to do any good and too big in the long run.''

And then as if Dick Morris were still whispering sweet political nothings in his ear, Clinton added that he, of course, liked the child tax credit and ending the marriage penalty.

Would anyone be surprised that in a column in Thursday's New York Post, commenting on the skill with which Bush will have it both ways on the tax cut, Morris wrote, ``How can a Democrat oppose expanding the child-tax credit, lowering the tax rates on the two lowest brackets and repealing of the marriage penalty?''

Yep, even when it comes to parsing a complex issue like the tax cut, the guy's still a master - just as he is at playing elder statesman while skillfully turning the knife on the Bush administration.

``It never occurred to me that I was in sole possession of the truth,'' he professed about his White House years, then added, ``But we now face those who have exclusive claim to the truth.''

Charming and ruthless, flawed and beguiling, Clinton continues to fascinate because he remains that bundle of contradictions. That and because he remains on the stage. The coffee shop in Chappaqua aside, it's where he really lives.

[backhoe]

"Has that clinton "legacy" made you feel safer yet?"

Lest Americans ever forget why the clintons, and all their enablers need to be hectored, hounded, and harried into silence, until "clintonese is only spoken in Hell," look here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/765080/posts

The Clinton Files
various links | 10-08-02 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/723210/posts

Liars-- and Sleaze, Incorporated... ( my files on the clintons and friends )
various links | 7-27-02 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/611951/posts

Hodgepodge O' Hillary
various links | 01-20-02 | backhoe

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/771000/posts

The Atomic Genie- what we have about North Korea's Nuclear program
various FR posts | 10-17-02 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

There are, of course, what I consider my "most damaging" set of hard-core links:

The Cost of Life (Clinton/Gore Sellout of Security for Campaign Contributions) **FR EXCLUSIVE** #2

CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong – Clinton to Blame

Is Bill Clinton Responsible for September 11?

Catastrophic intelligence Failure - Clinton's Bin Laden GATE

-Murder, Inc.--

-The number of "suicides" for people linked to this and other Clinton-related cases--

-ATTENTION BLOODHOUNDS--

-Women in the Clinton Era: Abuse,Intimidation and Smears--

-SEND JUANITA BROADDRICK VIDEO TO THOSE WHO WANT CLINTON TO SPEAK--

Nothing phony about response to Hillary at fete

Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention

-Sen. Hillary Clinton--NewsMax.com Hot Topics--

Boo Hillary! The Video***

[Leisler]

You are consistantly wrong.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

[Cedric]

Your source is as bogus as you are.

[Cedric]

....Bush would of never gotten the nomination....

Neither would Dukakis.

[Cedric]

Your premises are preposterous. Bush wouldn't have even been nominated were it not for the small fact that Reagan was president for eight years.
Duh!
BTW did you know that had Thomas Jefferson not made the Lousiana Purchase, Bill Clinton wouldn't have even be a U.S. citizen?!?!

[Leisler]

Whatever.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"We {the right} flirted with that nutbag just enough to let Clinton sneak into office with 43% of the vote."

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Frankly....and with no disrespect towards your opinion...I disagree. Maybe your thinking is based on personal anecdotal experience..?

IMO, one will never know....the political stance..( left, right, middle..) of those who voted for Perot. I'm of the opinion that there weren't as many ( on the right...) as you assume.

One things for sure I'm never saying "we" elected the Sick one. You can say it..but I ain't..!! LOL!!

FRegards,