Even if Clinton thinks of himself as Ahab, and Starr as Moby.
Posted on 06/23/2004 5:58:45 PM PDT by perfect stranger
According to the front page of the New York Times – so it must be true! – the release of Bill Clinton's latest round of lies, "My Life," has "many of his old antagonists ... gearing up again." Among many others, MSNBC's Bill Press said the book was "bringing all the Clinton haters out from under their rocks. I mean, they're salivating because they get another chance to get into all of these issues."
We're not salivating with anticipation – that's drool as we fall into a coma.
Since Clinton was impeached, liberals have been trapped in a time warp. They just can't seem to "move on." Books retelling Clinton's side of impeachment – only since the decadent buffoon left office – include: Joe Conason's and Gene Lyons' "The Hunting of the President: The 10-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton" (endorsed by America's most famous liar!), David Brock's "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars," Joe Eszterhas' "American Rhapsody," Joe Klein's "The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton," Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History," and now, the master himself weighs in with "My Life."
As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon produced the only Regnery book with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover that did not make the New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how obsessed the Clinton-haters are.
Now there's even a documentary version of liberals' Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy fantasy, "The Hunting of the President." O.J. had more dignity.
If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 Democratic National Convention speech nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War and a Piece."
Considering how obsessed liberals are with turning their version of Clinton's impeachment into the historical record, it's interesting how these books spend very little time talking about Clinton's impeachment. In lieu of discussing the facts of his impeachment, Clinton simply makes analogies to grand historical events – events notable for bearing not the remotest relationship to his own sordid story.
Clinton claims, for example, that conservatives decided to target him in lieu of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended and conservatives needed a new villain. In other words, Clinton is equating himself, in scale and importance, to the Soviet Union, the global communist conspiracy and the Marxist-Leninist Revolution. Nope, no ego problem there. ("My Life" was Clinton's second choice title, after the publisher balked at naming the book "I Am God, and You Are All My Subjects.")
Alternatively, Clinton claims conservatives hated him because he represented "the '60s." As is now well-known, four lawyers, toiling away after hours and on weekends, worked quietly behind the scenes to propel the Paula Jones case to the Supreme Court and bring Monica Lewinsky to the attention of the independent counsel. All four of us were 5 to 8 years old when Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown in 1968. (Actually, it was the '70s that I really hated, but that's another column for another day.)
So I'm pretty sure it wasn't our anger about "the '60s" that inspired feelings of contempt for Bill Clinton. It must have been something else – some ineffable quality. Let's see, what was it again? Ah yes! I remember now! It was that Clinton is a pathological liar and sociopath.
If Clinton wasn't the Soviet Empire or "the '60s," then he was Rosa Parks! Clinton actually compares his battle against impeachment to civil-rights struggles in the South. Haven't blacks been insulted enough by the constant comparison between gay marriage and black civil rights without this horny hick comparing his impeachment to Selma?
And that's when Clinton is even talking about his presidency. From what I've heard, roughly half of Clinton's memoir – hundreds and hundreds of pages – is about every picayune detail of his life before becoming president. Through sheer force of will I shall resist the urge to refer to this book as a "blow by blow" account of Clinton's entire miserable existence.
Most presidential memoirs get right to the president part, on the assumption that people would not be interested in, for example, Harry Truman's deal-making as Jackson County executive or Jimmy Carter's initiatives as a state senator in Georgia – let alone who they took to their junior high school proms. When Ulysses S. Grant wrote his memoirs, he skipped his presidency altogether and just wrote about what would be most interesting to people – his service as a Civil War commander.
But Clinton thinks people are dying to read 900 pages about his very ordinary life. He views being president as just one more episode in a life that is fascinating in all its stages because he is just so fascinating as a person – at least to himself. In a perverse way, it's utterly appropriate. What actually happened during the Clinton presidency? No one can remember anything about it except the bimbos, the lies and the felonies. Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he did.
Meow!!
Jen Bluestein and Kirsten Powers
Political consultants from central casting: intense Bostonian, blond Alaskan; ex-bosses—Bono, Tina Brown, Bill Clinton
One recent morning, Jen Bluestein and Kirsten Powers, the new Democratic tag-team wrestlers in New York politics, were discussing one of Ms. Powers’ recent appearances on Fox News, in which she was labeled a "Democratic strategist" and sparred with conservatives over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"I was so caffeinated, I was swinging my feet," said Ms. Powers.
"The only thing worse they could have done was call you ‘Democratic madwoman,’" said Ms. Bluestein, furrowing her brow for effect.
"I think I’m really good on CNN. I think I really suck on Fox," Ms. Powers said.
Ms. Powers and Ms. Bluestein will have plenty of chances to keep working on her Fox mojo: The two women have recently set up shop in a Soho office as Powers/Bluestein, a movie script waiting to happen: They’ll think for you, they’ll get your message out there, they’ll even run your campaign.
These bleeps must, sadly, be endured until their assorted forms of mental degeneration become SO obvious and unavoidable that even the Old Media catch on...i.e. roughly 20 years from now.
Even if Clinton thinks of himself as Ahab, and Starr as Moby.
What makes a Clintonite tick? (Serious query.) Someone, please enlighten me.
I've been waiting for her take. Ann never disappoints!
Since you said "Meow!!", I suspect you may understand what's going on a bit better than I do. Can you please explain her statement to me? Cause I'm a bit confused.
1) Ann leaves out any mention of her own "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which no doubt the liberals will jump all over her for.
2) Regnery generally sticks to publishing conservative books (being that it's the only publisher that will touch them)
So, is she boosting herself at Lowry's expense because she -did- get her book on the NY Times list? If so, it went over my head cause Clinton's "mug" is not on the cover of my copy of her book.
Qwinn
NROs reponse at the time is here: L’Affaire Coulter
Ms. Powers was just terrible on Hannity and Colmes. She was not fast on her feet and she added nothing to the conversation.
Way to go, Ann, you good lookin' thing you. Beautifully said.
Penis.
Same thing, really.
Bubba's on Larry King tonite. All softballs for sure.
Jen Bluestein and Kirsten Powers.
Older version of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.
May I presume this is satire? Of course they are immune to facts; they are liberals for a reason. This is why trying to argue with liberals using the facts as we know them is fruitless.
Ann ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.