Get the Clintons Off the Stage

St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/15/03 | Susan Estrich

[shortstop]

The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats.

[Enterprise]

Every now and then, Estrich lets loose with that nerve busting cackle. She does have some good moments though.

[cyncooper]

You said, regarding bill clinton:

The question is - who can't let go.

You can be sure that as long as he opens his trap, commentary will be forthcoming. Thank God.

[Gritty]

But the more attention (clinton) gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Bullseye!

As usual, it's all about him.

Let Bubba blabber. Hopefully, Hidabeast will get knocked off by Pataki or maybe she'll just melt. In any case, the clinton's stay front and center and continue to raise big money for the Republicans.

[jejones]

Holy cow, something I agree with Susan Estrich on, i.e. that the Clintons should shut up. But shouldn't she be saying sink to the Clinton's level?

[bagman]

You're thinking of Josh Steiner who was chief-of-staff to then Sec-Treasury Lloyd Bentsen. Steiner told a Senate Committee (probably the Banking Committee) that he had written lies in his personal journal regarding the Madison Guaranty S&L investigation. I think his "lies" dealt with Resolution Trust Corporation accountant Jean Lewis in Kansas City who had started to piece together the true nature of the American Alcibiades's and the Hildebeast's dealings with Madison Guaranty and Jim McDougal and who was subsequently re-assigned.

At the time the Senate committee was controlled by the Demoncrats which explains why Steiner was not laughed out of the hearing room (and then found in contempt of the Congress for lying under oath).

[McGavin999]

HA! Anyone with brains can see this, fortunately, the Clintons will never figure it out. I love how they talk about how "smart" they are, but they weren't smart enough to protect this country, nor are they smart enough to know when to get off the stage.

[blackdog]

The viagra overdose protocol; Continuous audio tapes of Susan Estrich barking out the phrase "OOOOh Baby, Me So Hot"

The side effect can be quite stressful. One patient swore he was being sodomized by Harvey Firestein.

[Matchett-PI]

"I ask you, what is so brilliant about this man?"

When the Marxist Left, speaking admiringly of an individual, uses the word "brilliant", they mean it in the biblical sense:

"Wise to do evil"

[cubreporter]

And if he is THAT brilliant, how come he married hilleree???

[cubreporter]

Oh my God..I have to switch the ch when she comes on. Sorry, but she is so ridiculous making the faces as the opponent is speaking and then that voice...wow.

[cubreporter]

or STINK to the clinton's level.

[Liz]

The money is drying up.

That's for sure.

The corporate thieves who raked it in dring the Clinton bubble, are all going to jail, as Gramps points out; the Dumbocrats aren't collecting the big bucks.

Probably the Clinton LIEbrary will end up as a lean-to selling used books in a flea market.

[cardinal4]

Don't give yet! there is one more book by the fat guy himself, Bill Clinton. I understand the title is: "How I won the War at Waco"

No, I believe its titled," How I got serviced by an intern, got impeached, but still got away with it," or "PT Barnum was right; I get 100,000 a speech!"

[You Dirty Rats]

If the Democrats were smart, they would draft Shrillary for 2004.

If she wins, OK for them.

If she loses (especially if she loses badly), then that will get the Clintons off the stage for good. They might still try to hog the spotlight, but nobody loves a loser.

Worst result for the Dems would be for Shrillary to lose a close election in 2004. She would want another chance in 2008.

But until she runs for President and loses (or, God Forbid, after she serves two terms as President), she'll haunt the Democrats like a banshee.

[TC Rider]

Oh my God..I have to switch the ch when she comes on. Sorry, but she is so ridiculous making the faces as the opponent is speaking and then that voice...wow.

I suspect the voice is a result of a 3 pack a day habit. Back during the year of Monica, I always felt like her head was going to pop out of the TV into my living room

[cgk]

If she loses (especially if she loses badly), then that will get the Clintons off the stage for good. They might still try to hog the spotlight, but nobody loves a loser

Good point, and we can only wish. As it is 64% of DEMOCRATS can't name ONE of the NINE Dems running for President in 2004. She at least has that LAST name recognition. But I consider her more dangerous than her perjuring, impeached, philandering, life's a party in my honor husband. So I'd be pretty uncomfortable having her anywhere near the White House again.

As an aside, I'm loving these stories about Clinton v. Clinton on the economy. They apparently spend little time together (big shocker, there) and don't have their talking points synchronized. She slams it - he seems pretty rosy - talking about "cycles."

[js1138]

"Lying History" -- Amazon.com Sales Rank: 192

has fallen 50 places since early this morning.

[CyberAnt]

A person can be intellectually brilliant and common sense stupid. I believe that describes x42 to a teeeeeee! He was so self-absorbed (a character flaw) he was willing to take any risk to satisfy his cravings; which proves his total lack of common sense.

Unfortunately, the dims are not able to distinguish between the two. For Susan to say we "shouldn't have impeached him for IT", means she doesn't want to believe he was impeached for lying in a court of law, not his escapades in the oval office and other places. The fact he lost his law license should have proven that to the dims.

[cubreporter]

Yes and then one time I saw her on a tv show and she had a red dress on, vereeee slim and the face of a 20 year old. What a complete transition. Then the next time I saw her she was back to her old face and figure. Was I the only one who saw that? I didn't understand it at all. Can't remember the show. Strange though....