Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Before I explain, let me say that I’m not a (Bill) Clinton hater. I actually like the guy. I’ve grown nostalgic for the Clinton years. The economy was booming. He was the most free trade president we’ve had in a long, long time (certainly more free trade than this one). The federal government grew less under his leadership than under any president in my lifetime (save for Ford). And after the last seven years, it seems almost quaint that we were all worked up over lies about blowjobs, doesn’t it?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

A couple of weeks ago at a bar in Alexandria, I by chance met a visiting Democratic activist from New York. This was an older guy, who also was the vice-mayor of a decent-sized town in the Hudson Valley. We started chatting politics and, of course, the election. He said he was a long time supporter of Hillary Clinton, but had abruptly jumped ship to the Obama campaign shortly after the South Carolina primary. His explanation was interesting. It was all about Bill.

I thought at the time that Bill Clinton’s comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson were tacky and self-defeating, but I hadn’t really given them much more thought than that. But this guy made some interesting points. Bill Clinton has mastered southern politics all his life, the activist said. He knows all the buzz words, he knows all the code words, he knows where you do and don’t tread. Clinton, the activist said, has been on the right side of racial politics his entire political career. No one that savvy slips up the way Clinton did. It had to have been a calculated move. And because it was a calculated move, it was a deeply cynical, baldly race-driven move. Clinton, the activist said, was signaling to white voters that Obama isn’t his own man. Clinton was giving white voters the okay to marginalize Obama–to put him aside as just another stooge the party has to prop up to appease the black folk, but not someone they ought to take seriously. This, the activist told me, was unforgivable. It’s why not just black people, but a sizable number of Democratic activists have flocked to Obama.

It was an interesting conversation, and made a lot of sense. But I wonder now if Clinton’s comments may sprung from something even deeper. The thing is, Bill Clinton is incredibly savvy. He may be the most talented politician of my lifetime. The Jesse Jackson comments were uncharacteristically sloppy. What in the world made him utter them?

So here’s a crazy theory that occurred to me the other day, and that gets more plausible the more I think about it: Clinton’s comments were calculated, but they may have been more sinister than even the activist I met knows. Clinton–perhaps subconsciously–was sabotaging his wife’s campaign.

Crazy? Maybe. But bear with me, here. Clinton had to have known that marginalizing Obama wouldn’t work. He knows Obama is a talented politician, that he isn’t a demagogue like Jackson, and that he has already demonstrated that he can attract white voters in large swaths–Obama certainly didn’t win Iowa by dominating the black vote, did he?

So why would Clinton do it? Well, maybe he doesn’t want his wife to be president.

They don’t come much more alpha male than Bill Clinton. The guy’s a walking erection. I can’t imagine anything more emasculating to an alpha-alpha like Bill than to watch his wife arc over him–for her to become more powerful than he. Actually, it’s quite a bit worse than that. Hillary Clinton was on the verge of not only becoming more powerful than Bill, she was ready to become the most powerful person on the planet. Not only that, she was about to do so by assuming the very office Bill once held, but (probably) won’t ever hold again. Bill, on the other hand, would be relegated to first lady. I can’t see how that wouldn’t mess with the psychology of a guy like Clinton.

More to support my theory: It’s pretty clear that Hillary Clinton’s reputation and public image have never been of much concern to Bill Clinton. He has publicly humiliated his wife over and over and over again, then counted on her to stand by him in the interests of his career–at which point he inevitably turns around and humiliates her again. It isn’t all that hard to believe that a guy who’s alpha enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern might subconsciously sabotage his wife’s ascent to power, is it?

Yeah, I know. Clinton is supposed to be the male face of feminism. Certainly a progressive, forward-thinking fella’ like him wouldn’t undermine his wife’s ambition because of some Neanderthal urge to stay at the head of his pack, would he?

But what’s really all that feminist about Bill Clinton? Certainly not the way he’s treated women on an individual basis over the course of his career. This is a guy who routinely uses women for his own sexual amusement, then tosses them under a bus when they become a problem. Gloria Steinem famously wrote during the impeachment imbroglio that Clinton gets a “free pass” on sexual harassment because of all he’s done to keep abortion safe and legal. But Clinton was a late convert to abortion rights (he was pro-life for much of his career), and rather conveniently switched at about the time it became politically expedient to be pro-choice. And let’s face it, for a guy with Clinton’s urges (and inability to control them), there’s certainly something self-serving about “all he’s done to keep abortion safe and legal.”

I’m not saying Bill Clinton sat down and figured all of this out. But a friend of mine once told me something that I’ve found has proven true over the years: “Few things really happen by accident.” Add it up: Clinton’s remarks after South Carolina gave Obama’s already building momentum another nudge. His wife’s campaign has never really recovered. It was a mistake that was really unprecedented in his political career. Even the Sister Souljah stuff was carefully calibrated. Yes, it irked some academic blacks and the hip hop community, but it also won him praise from the ministers and religious civil rights crowd. The Jesse Jackson comments about Obama had almost no upside at all. The number of quasi-racist, primary-voting Democrats they might have appealed to is exceedingly small–certainly not worth the obvious damage a comment could inflict on the support for just about everyone else. Besides, anyone a comment like that might have been directed at wouldn’t have been voting for Obama, anyway. And it all came at a critical juncture in the campaign, when Hillary badly needed momentum, and couldn’t afford a major mistake. It gave independents who may have been flirting with Ron Paul or John McCain more incentive to come around on Obama. It just seems like too dumb a thing for a smart politician like Clinton to have done if he was really trying to help his wife win the nomination.

Remember, Clinton said some other strange things at about the same time, including his weird, unsolicited comments that Hillary and John McCain are good friends, and would run one of the friendliest presidential campaigns in American history. In the heat of a primary, in an election to replace a Republican administration universally loathed by movement Democrats, is it really wise to casually note that your wife the candidate is chummy with the GOP frontrunner, a guy who would continue most of the current administration’s policies, including (most notably) the Iraq war, the one issue that raises primary voters’ haunches than any other? Democratic voters are out for blood, and Bill Clinton says of Hillary, “Oh that John McCain? She loves him!”

Certainly, Clinton’s gaffes played a big role in turning the Democratic primary around. But the more I think about them, the more it seems like they may not have been by accident.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

101 Responses to “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?”

  1. #1 |  Pete Guither | 

    Fascinating. And it has a strangely compelling logic to it.

  2. #2 |  Rob | 

    “The number of quasi-racist, primary-voting Democrats they might have appealed to is exceedingly small–certainly not worth the obvious damage a comment could inflict on the support for just about everyone else.”

    I think you’re underestimating the number of quasi-racist, primary-voting Democrats. Clinton was betting on Latinos, the elderly, and white, blue-collar voters as her team. Obama’s got the kids, blacks, and activists. Once the floodgates opened, and everyone decided the Obama had a real shot, support started to flow to Obama, and Hillary figured an identity-based election gave her the best shot from the point forward. It may have been the wrong decision, but I certainly think it was calculated, and it may yet work.

    It’s easy to forget, but Hillary’s coalition has held pretty well in important Democratic states like California, New Jersey, Mass.

  3. #3 |  TC | 

    Unlike you, I’ve little respect for the Clintons. Not that it matters.

    But I too have had the feeling that Bill should not have been brought out as a big gun for his wife. Some of his comments are indeed nothing but torpedoes to her campaigne.

    Why, well I think you covered that too, plus I’m sure that he does not desire all the mud of his life to be drug up and splattered all over the air waves again. Let Sleeping dogs lie?

    Such is fine

  4. #4 |  Justin | 

    I was tentatively going along with your theory until you brought up the John McCain reference. Hillary has said numerous times that a run between her and McCain would be the friendliest election in recent memory. Was she too trying to subconsciously subvert her campaign? I doubt it; I think she just really respects John McCain and vice-versa. Also, I think you’re overestimating how cunning the Clintons are. I think his comment may have been thought out, but not in the method you suggest. He was probably trying to swing the white vote his way by making Barack Obama the “black candidate.”

  5. #5 |  Mikestermike | 

    Perhaps you are correct in your assumption, Radley. From what I gather from those who know Bill n Hill, is that Hill really believes she made Bill into President. It was her manipulations of an obviously talented Bill that catipulted him into the Governor’s mansion and eventually the White House. His philandering may have played into that, although he just may be a horn-dog, too. Subtle sabotage, though, would not be beneath him, to show Hill her real place. Remember when she ran for Senate? She said she had no intentions on the White House. Perhaps she said that not to placate NY voters, but rather to keep Bill off the scent….

  6. #6 |  Christopher Monnier | 

    What about the “marginalized as the ‘black’ candidate” theory, as described by Dave Weigel here?

    Daniel Radosh explains (in a theory I like even more than he does):
    Think about it. All of a sudden, Obama is being reduced to “the black candidate” he never was before. Bill even called Al Sharpton’s radio show to “apologize” for his remarks — thus linking Sharpton’s name with Obama for perhaps the first time ever. Indeed, it seems like every African-American politician is being called for comment, driving home the point that Obama is “one of them” rather than “one of us” (where us means all America)… For the first time in the primary, she’s running against “the black candidate” rather than Barack Obama.

  7. #7 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > The federal government grew less under (Clinton) than under
    > any president in my lifetime (save for Ford).

    That’s in spite of his trying. As recently as a decade ago, there were still *some* principled “fiscal Republicans” in Congress (Democrats lacked control of the House for, IIRC, six of the eight Clinton years) during the 90s.

    > And after the last seven years, it seems almost quaint that we
    > were all worked up over lies about blowjobs, doesn’t it?

    Which president covered up dozens of terrorist attacks during his re-election year (including the one at the Atlantic Olympics, and TWA-800)? Cover-ups which still stand as “official history” (right along with The Warren Commission Report)?

    In the same vein, which president’s own chief console has no video-taped evidence of leaving the White House alive prior to being found dead in Fort Marcy Park, and whose former campaign manager (Jerry Parks) subsequently predicted his own violent death?

    Which president sold nuclear technology to North Korea?

    Who was president when the the World Trade Center was attacked the *first* time by Al Qaeda?

    Who was president when honest-to-god *tanks*, sent by his own Attorney General, rolled over Mt. Carmel? An attorney general, by the way, who has her very own chapter in “Votescam: The Stealing of America”?

    Who went to war in Yugoslavia under considerably more spurious pretexts than there ever were for Iraq? (Was Slobo worse than Saddam, or anti-US? Answer: No.) Who were the primary beneficiaries of the Yugoslavian war, and were they were repeated warnings to that effect at the time? (If you answered “Albanian Islamic militants” and “Yes”, you are correct.) Who permitted the US military to be a complete “tool” of UN policy in this regard?

    Which president had surgery for a cocaine-habit induced “deviated septum” while simultaneously doing jack-squat about the “War on Drugs,” which really gathered steam during his administration and was already solidly in place and ready to home-invade before his successor even won his party’s nomination?

    Which president fired every federal prosecutor upon taking office, and pardoned hundreds of cronies upon leaving office?

    Under which president was the Fed-orchestrated inflationary boom/bust cycle of looting every American’s savings account perfected, culminating in the greatest percentage stock-market crash in history ten months before his successor was sworn into office?

    — Let’s make no mistakes: Bush is an extraordinarily weak and incompetent president, but by and large much of his “failure” amounts to doing little to halt the accelerating downward slide established by the previous administration.

    To be charitable, however, there’s not a whole lot he could do at this point other (given that virtually everyone in Congress is a pure socialist now) than stamp “VETO” with one hand and write Executive Orders with the other.

  8. #8 |  joel hanes | 

    Bill Clinton … may be the most talented politician of my lifetime.

    It’s beginning to look like maybe President Clinton will turn out to be the second-most talented politician of your lifetime.

  9. #9 |  dmoynihan | 

    Rack it.

    Nicely done.

    /Think Gore saw the potential for something like this, and didn’t want Bubba helping his campaign?

  10. #10 |  Pat Lynch | 

    Wow, I thought I was reading Andrew Sullivan for a minute. Bill Clinton was raised almost exclusivly by a woman, that is the number one thing he’s had in common with most blacks all these years. Clinton was a free trader because he had to be. Any sign that America was not going with the program would have sunk the market indicators which were as important to him as the polls. After all he was the first dem prez since Jimmy Carter. The Clinton years were good ones, but not because of Clinton.
    Also Radley I see in you something I see in a lot of 20 somethings and that is this yearning to be Euro or Euro-like. You look down on important traditional American icons like say the White House and not getting a BJ in the OVAL.
    As a Libertarian you must be aware that Clinton armed more beauracrats in his 8 years than all previous presidents combined. He doubled the number of enforcement hacks. I think freedom is bigger than just wanting to smoke pot and get blow jobs from interns, and sniffing hand sanitizer, and playing cards. The government is taking our money like never before, and when we tire of it, they will use those guns.

  11. #11 |  Tokin42 | 

    Good post and just about anything is plausible when talking about the clintons but maybe it’s a little easier than you’re thinking. Since the end of clintons first term as president, I don’t think he’s actually ever helped ANYONE he’s campaigned for. It seems like every time he shows up to help someones campaign, he raises a ton of money and the candidate ends up losing.

  12. #12 |  Radley Balko | 

    >>Bush is an extraordinarily weak and incompetent president, but by and large much of his “failure” amounts to doing little to halt the accelerating downward slide established by the previous administration.<<

    Oh, come on. Did Bill Clinton push for and sign the largest new federal entitlement in 40 years? Did he create a new cabinet agency (that happens to be the largest bureaucracy in the history of the world)? Federal spending actually slowed under Clinton. As did growth in the federal workforce. Al Gore’s “reinventing government” plan actually gave us inspector generals, which have done quite a bit to illuminate waste and abuse. Bush has tried to undermine them at every turn.

    And while Clinton was by no means “good” on the Drug War, to say it “really gained steam” under his administration is absurd. It was Reagan who ramped up the War on Drugs. And no one man has done more damage in the name of drug prohibition than William Bennett while he was drug czar for Bush 41.

    None of this is to say I’m pining for a Hillary Clinton administration. I think she’d be a hell of a lot worse. He certainly wasn’t a libertarian, or even an advocated of limited government, but of the four presidents who’ve been in office since I’ve been politically aware, Bill Clinton was by far and away the best.

  13. #13 |  Tom Bux | 

    I’m pretty sure now that Obama is going to be the Dem’s candidate.

    As much as I’m not a big McCain fan, I think I’m going to have to vote for him over Obama. Obama’s liberalism frightens me. It keeps me up all night.

    In other news, here in Pennsylvania. Republican voters are switching their registratoin to Democrat. The theory is that they are switching to vote for a Dem in the primary, probably Hilllary.

  14. #14 |  Love Gets You Twisted § Unqualified Offerings | 

    […] me offer a competing theory. Bill and Hillary Clinton love each other “truly, madly, deeply.” The former Prez […]

  15. #15 |  WhiskeyJuvenile | 

    For what it’s worth, I’ve had surgery for a deviated septum and I’ve never snorted anything in my life.

  16. #16 |  Will Grigg | 

    I got involved in a campaign to impeach Clinton before the Lewinsky eruption, and in all candor I’m also a bit nostalgic for his presidency … or at least I was until his recent behavior offered a forceful reminder of his omnivorous narcissism and his capacity for petty abuse of power. Duhbya is a worse president, by a considerable margin, than Bubba, but this is because he’s been able to close the deal on a lot of things Bubba wanted to do, but couldn’t, particularly in the realm of civil liberties: Unlike Clinton, Bush the Dumber didn’t have to overcome Republican congressional opposition, since the GOPsters simply fell in line behind the Dear Leader post-9/11.

    That being said, there’s only one thing about this post I object to with any vehemence, and that’s describing Bill Clinton as, in any sense, an “alpha” male. Yes, he’s priapic, and he suppurates a certain … I guess you’d call it “charisma.” But he is NOT a dominant male by any definition, much less somebody who exercises leadership effortlessly by inspiring instinctive deference in other males.

    From his youth, Billy-Boy has always been one to hide behind the skirts of a dominant female, to use her as a protective shield while plotting, scheming, conniving, and otherwise avoiding a straight-up fight.

    Were he a real Alpha Male, Billy-Boy wouldn’t be intimidated one bit by the prospect of his wife becoming president — because he would still possess the undeniable, yet irresistible, quality that made him an alpha. Assuming he deliberately sabotaged Hillary’s bid (a prospect Dennis Miller has also discussed), this would demonstrate Bill’s understanding that, stripped of impressive titles and the appurtenances of power (as an ex-Pres, he’s the one in the family with Secret Service protection), he’s a pathetic little punk.

  17. #17 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > Did Bill Clinton push for and sign the largest new federal
    > entitlement in 40 years?

    Push for? Yes. Sign? No. (Because Hillarycare was shot down and never made it to his desk.)

    > Did he create a new cabinet agency (that happens to be
    > the largest bureaucracy in the history of the world)

    Hyperbole. Shoving existing government security agencies into one big basket retitled “Homeland Security” doesn’t mean that anything newer or bigger was actually created, other than hiring a lot of slackwits to piss off air-travelers and pinch their stuff. Disgusting to be sure, but small beans compared to, say, the state-security apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party, or the Saudi-orchestrated Wahhabism network, which appears to be successfully able to incite insurrections in dozens of nations simultaneously.

    The only thing really “large” about the US DoHS is the amount of inflated fiat currency it can plow through.

    > Al Gore’s “reinventing government” plan actually gave us
    > inspector generals, which have done quite a bit to illuminate
    > waste and abuse.

    The waste and abuse continues as before, but now you also get to pay for the salaries of inspector generals who produce reports which are discussed and then forgotten.

    “Inspector general” — is there anyone else here old enough to be able to say that they simply cannot even *look* at that phrase without immediately thinking of the Danny Kaye movie of the very name?

    > And while Clinton was by no means “good” on the Drug War, to
    > say it “really gained steam” under his administration is absurd.
    > It was Reagan who ramped up the War on Drugs.

    And Clinton was right smack inbetween Reagan/Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., and did…what?…for eight straight years? Nothing; that’s what. He sat on his butt while every police dept. in the US lined up its hardware deals for surplus military equipment and formed shiny new SWAT teams to use it all.

    — That stuff didn’t just magically *poof* into every podunk ‘burb in America the day Bush Jr. took office.

    “COPS”, the TV show (which so often resembles the “robot policemen torturing people” channel in the movie “THX-1138), debuted in 1988 and steadily gained popularity through the Clinton years.

    > None of this is to say I’m pining for a Hillary Clinton administration….

    Nobody should. She was, after all, the one committing felony evidence-tampering by ransacking Vince’s office before the body was even cold. And Google the phrase “they screwed people left and right” for a deep look into that cold-hearted commissar. With a Hillary presidency, you’ll get to see the Arkansas Mafia finally running things there way they like without a hostile House of Representatives.

    > ….I think she’d be a hell of a lot worse.

    Without question, since she’ll have a larger permanent government infrastructure to play with (reducing the SIZE of government is something no president has ever done).

    Like Billy Beck says: “If you think this President is bad, wait until you see the next one.”

    > of the four presidents who’ve been in office since I’ve been
    > politically aware, Bill Clinton was by far and away the best.

    Keep your eye on the “big ticket” items, Radley. — There’s been *nothing* like Waco under Bush, wherein a full-scale military exercise is carried out on live television over the course of several weeks, culminating in helicopter gunshops and tanks assaulting a wooden building with eighty Americans inside, half of them children, with predictably horrific results.

    Light reading: http://www.brasscheck.com/clarkatwaco.html

  18. #18 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > For what it’s worth, I’ve had surgery for a deviated septum and
    > I’ve never snorted anything in my life.

    You probably also don’t have your own brother Roger telling the press that you have “a nose like a vacuum-cleaner”.

    (Mind you: I couldn’t care less if anybody snorted so much dope that their head exploded. — What’s galling is the hypocrisy involved in laying out the lines on the mirror without first signing an Executive Order immediately ending the WoSD and pardoning everyone in prison due to it.)

  19. #19 |  Pat Lynch | 

    A couple of more things: Not sure what an alpha male is, but I picture someone like Coach Ditka as being one, not Clinton. For one thing as I mentioned before he was raised by a woman which gave him insight in how to lie to them at an early age to get what he wanted, and he mastered it. Also all the women he screwed were really not that good-looking. Not really with maybe the exception being Elanor Mondale. Monica was fat with a fat face, Hillary is better looking now than when she was 30, which isn’t saying much. Paula Jones had a face like a beagle. Being the governer of a state should get you all kinds of babes, but from what I read he was more interested in wives of his friends.
    I guess if bitting a woman’s lip so she can’t yell when she’s being raped is macho, Bill Clinton would be an alpha.
    George W. Bush has been a solid president under tough circumstances.
    Does the Cato inst. take any money whatsoever that could be traced back to the American taxpayer?

  20. #20 |  G FL | 

    “of the four presidents who’ve been in office since I’ve been politically aware, Bill Clinton was by far and away the best.”

    None of the other commenters have brought up how mind-boggling this comment is coming from a self-professed libertarian. Ronald Reagan was the only president of the four who actively espoused libertarian ideals. His first inaugural address had the line (which simply restated his often-stated guiding principle for the prior twenty years):

    “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people.”

    While his administration was not perfect, in his 8 years his actions largely reflected those views. Those actions were limited mainly be having to cooperate with a Democratic House, which makes his accomplishments in lowering taxes and increasing economic freedom that much more impressive.

    I seriously have to question either your knowledge of history or your judgment if you believe, from a Libertarian perspective, that Clinton was “far and away” a better president than Reagan.

  21. #21 |  the $50 is the new $20 | 

    “George W. Bush has been a solid president under tough circumstances.”

    BZZZZT

    you lose

    thanks for playin’

    like a crack addict who’ll always find something nice to say about their dealer, I see too many men with an affinity for fear coming to bat for Bush the lesser.

  22. #22 |  Mike Schneider | 

    Realize that about the only reason Bush was elected was because the Democrats nominated the one person so mind-boggingly out of touch with reality that he actually muttered on live television that selling uranium to Iran was something he’d consider.

    (What is it with Democrats and giving nuclear technology to overtly hostile tyrannies?)

  23. #23 |  Oldsmoblogger | 

    It’s an interesting analysis, Radley, but I disagree. I am sympathetic to Bill Quick’s thesis that this campaign has been Bill Clinton’s attempt to make an end run around the 22nd Amendment, and when he saw it go a-glimmering, he panicked and stumbled.

  24. #24 |  Pat Lynch | 

    Poster GFL I agree with you 100%. I love this sight for things like the police state and SWAT teams, but I’m starting to wonder if Mr. Balko really just enjoys smoking pot? For a libertarian sight I never hear much mention of the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. He did more for freedom than any man since Jesus Christ.
    I’d like to hear more on this sight about the close relationship between the police unions and the democrat party. There is a reason why mayors in liberal cities such as Minneapolis can’t stand up to the SWAT teams, and that is the unions.
    Is this freedom thing just a really good arguement for smoking pot? Personally I think the war on drugs is not working, but where do we draw the line? Maybe cocaine? I know people that can do coke on the weekends and it doesn’t really affect their lives. Should we legalize coke?
    50/20 history will be the ultimate judge of George W.

  25. #25 |  Radley Balko | 

    Pat Lynch —

    I’m not sure who you’re parodying, but that might be one of the best comments ever left on this site.

    It’s comedic gold, man. Please, do stick around!

  26. #26 |  Pat Lynch | 

    What’s so funny? Want to smoke pot, change the law brother, I’m with you even though I think the stuff stinks. But don’t give me a bunch of long-winded arguements that have nothing to do with liberty.
    Was it the Reagan comment that was funny? Go talk to someone over in Bulgaria (which I do everyday), and ask them about Ronald Reagan. Or Berlin, or the Czech Rebublic.

  27. #27 |  Balloon Juice | 

    […] Radley Balko thinks so: […]

  28. #28 |  ZappaCrappa | 

    I think Hillary wants to get back to the white house just so she can give another go at lifting all that china and art work she tried to walk off with the first time around….

    And as far as Bill’s administration goes…you night want to revisit all the FBI stuff (you remember…using the FBI to get dirt on people that crossed them and things like that) and firings to make room for friends and cover-ups that were a constant thorn in his side….the list goes on and on and on. “Slick Willy” was a well-deserved name for the man. I wouldn’t buy a used car from him, that’s for sure.

  29. #29 |  More Links | 

    License to Grill
    How the Clintons invited Ken Starr into their private lives.
    Virginia Postrel | April 1998

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/30591.html

    http://www.reason.com/issues/show/323.html

    Dereliction Of Duty:
    The Constitutional Record of President Clinton
    by Timothy Lynch

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html

    No More Wacos:
    What’s Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement, and How to Fix It
    By David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman

    http://www.davekopel.com/Waco.htm

  30. #30 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > There is a reason why mayors in liberal cities such as Minneapolis
    > can’t stand up to the SWAT teams, and that is the unions.

    Other reasons:

    1. They’re not interested in making waves; they just wanna collect their checks and keep smilin’ on TV with babies.

    2. They’re dirty, and the cops have tapes. (E.g., the J. Edger Hoover’s FBI approach.)

  31. #31 |  Bill F. | 

    “Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. He did more for freedom than any man since Jesus Christ.”

    What’d Jesus ever do for freedom?

  32. #32 |  Mike Schneider | 

    Well, he was in a not indirect way responsible for Italians no longer worshiping Mars, the God of War.

  33. #33 |  sooz | 

    I think he is torn.

    On one hand, he knows that, as president, she will lord it over him and punish him for making her wait when she fully expected to succeed him immediately. But for Monica…He knows her people will do all they can to keep him out of the limelight and will send him on First Lady errands. So, he wants her to lose.

    On the other hand, he wants her to win so he can say, “See y’all love me so much you voted the way I told you to. You voted for her so you can have me.” (anybody notice how he uses pronouns frequently when her given name would be more appropriate.)

    This is one smart narcissist.

  34. #34 |  David Chesler | 

    Thanks Mike, for pointing out it wasn’t the blowjob, nor the lie about the blowjob.

    And thanks “More Links” for saying “Waco”.

    Remind me the time table about the federal Assault Weapons ban and Brady?

    I was employed almost completely during the Clinton years. I’ve been out of work about 26 months from March 2001 to now [after we’d survived Y2K, I remember the malaise setting in at that job when Mucko shot up Edgewater, and as we wondered about the election] and I was out of work for the first half of 1989. But I was a lot less worried about the future of my country and its government and my freedom.

    So Radley is favoring Hillary because he thinks Bill was intentionally trying to tank her with his remarks on Obama. But maybe that just what he wants you to think…

  35. #35 |  David Chesler | 

    On the other hand, I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that no matter if it’s the Black Democrat or the female Democrat or the Republican Democrat, I’ll be better employed for the next four or eight years.

  36. #36 |  Steve L. | 

    There is no doubt in my mind that Bill is trying to tank Hillary’s campaign. In 2000, Gore should have been a shoo-in. Clinton’s popularity was sky-high. Supposedly, the economy was booming (although there is some disagreement about that.) Everything pointed to a big Gore win. However, Clinton was nowhere to be seen endorsing Gore. He was widely criticised at the time for not helping his VP win the Oval Office. If you recall, he finally stepped up right at the end of the campaign and endorsed Gore. It was too little, too late.

    I believe that Bill behaved this way for a reason. Many people suspected that the economy was turning. Clinton’s legacy was built on how great people did during his administration. If his hand-picked successor presided over a downturn, it could only be balmed on him and that would tarnish his legacy.

    Now, we see mucht he same situation with Hillary. People view her administration as Bill Clinton II. However. he knows that she has some ideas which are far more radical than his. If people link the two administrations in their mind, her failures become his failures and once again, his legacy is tarnished.

    When you combine that with his massive ego as detailed above, the only conclusion is that he is trying to sabotage her.

  37. #37 |  Radley Balko | 

    So Radley is favoring Hillary because he thinks Bill was intentionally trying to tank her with his remarks on Obama.

    What in the world gave you that idea?

    I believe I’ve described Hillary as both a “neocon” and “wrong on just about everything.”

  38. #38 |  David Chesler | 

    To tell you the truth, I can’t find the take-home message in this convoluted tale (unless that’s all it is, a convoluted tale about a thing Bill did – in which case I’m getting it’s a good thing [making Hillary less likely to be elected] for a bad reason [being disloyal to your wife and political ally to protect your legacy] by someone you generally like [as stated].)

  39. #39 |  Tel | 

    I don’t think the comments were intended to hurt Hillary. They were just a miscalculation. By bringing it up at all, Obama would be forced to respond to it. There’s really no way, he figured, that Obama could have done so without getting mired in racial politics himself. I think Clinton figured that by calling him Jesse Jackson, he could incite Obama to become Jesse Jackson.

    What Bill didn’t expect was for Obama to handle it in a way as classy as he did. Obama didn’t take the bait. Yes, it was an ugly spot in the campaign for a couple of days. But it faded, and it backfired all over the Clinton camp.

  40. #40 |  Libby Spencer | 

    Oddly I had the same thought myself when the whole SC thing went down. It felt almost deliberate to me. You’re right. Bill’s not the kind of politician who makes a mistake like that, by mistake.

  41. #41 |  Craigory Gregory | 

    Has it occured to anyone that Bill Clinton is no longer the politician he once was. We tend to lose a lot skills as we get older. Couldn’t this really be a miscalculation that suggests his politicking is decreasing at his age like some men’s libido.

  42. #42 |  Mia | 

    Funny, a few days ago my husband said something very similar to me. He wondered how Bill’s gimorous ego would be able to deal with Hillary upstaging him and possibly outperforming him as president.

    What if she turned out to be a better president that he was (I doubt she’d be impeached)? How could he handle all the attention and adoration being focused on her, not him? Every time she enters a room he’ll hear Hail to the Chief, for her, not him (he mentioned in a recent stump speech how addicting that was and when he left office it was hard to get over not hearing it when he entered a room). What about when they travel abroad and the crowds cheer for HIllary, not him?

    Definitely food for thought.

  43. #43 |  Simon J | 

    “…the one issue that raises primary voters’ haunches than any other…”

    I think you mean “hackles”. Or maybe not. Raising their haunches is pretty much what every voter shows a willingness to do.

  44. #44 |  nom de guerre | 

    that was a *dazzling* excellent comment above, mr. will grigg. for 20 years now, i’ve been saying that bubba was no more ‘alpha-male’ or ‘charismatic’ than the obnoxious camera-hog used-car dealer that every city has. “me an’ mah magic blue lowprice genie feel yore pain! ah’ll beat anyone’s price or ah’ll give yew a *billion dollars*!!!!!!!!”

    no one ever speaks of grudging admiration for THOSE clowns. why does bubba get a pass?

  45. #45 |  Mike Schneider | 

    Bubba gets a pass because he was unable to screw up the economy as much as he would have liked as fast as he would have liked (or, more properly, Hillary and everyone else in the DNC who actually had a hand in legislation).

    — Weird stuff like that happens when people aren’t paying attention.

    E.g., almost nobody remembers now that the stock market crash leading to the most recent recession happened in the spring of 2000, ten months before Bush Jr. was sworn in.

  46. #46 |  DJB | 

    “should take comfort in the fact that no matter if it’s the Black Democrat or the female Democrat or the Republican Democrat, I’ll be better employed for the next four or eight years.”

    Why David, Do you work for the government?

  47. #47 |  Pat Lynch | 

    Someone asked what Jesus Christ did for freedom. Are you serious? I know it’s become hip to look down on Christ, but you should not rewrite history.
    Some people that might disagree with Billy Clinton being great prez
    1 Elian Gonzalez
    2 Kathleen Willey
    3 The Branch Davidians
    a child 1
    b child 2
    c child 3

    I could go on but I have to go to church.

  48. #48 |  Brian | 

    Well thought out on your part. I have kind of thought that myself for a while now, but not for the specific reasons you used. I was thinking more about human nature.

    Doesn’t matter for me though. I am holding my nose and voting for McCain. No way I could vote for the Socialist. (Applies to Hillary or Obama)

  49. #49 |  andrewdb | 

    See “The Disfunctional President” for a take on how Bill Clinton is a raging ACA, self-defeating personality. And it came our BEFORE the Monica stuff happened.

  50. #50 |  Scott Free | 

    Dennis Miller aired this theory months ago on his radio show. I think there may indeed be something to it.

  51. #51 |  newscaper | 

    “What’d Jesus ever do for freedom?”

    Please record my “WTF?” to that as well.
    Christianity is the source of the modern notion of universal human rights & dignity — equality before God became equality before temporal law in Western Civilization. That’s *not* to say it was a uniquely Christian idea, but historically, it was clearly the one that “took”.

    Even where cultures and governments have fallen short, the underlying ideals were there (even amidst the other crap pulled in in his name thru the centuries). Note the big abolition movements were driven by *Christians*. Virtually no one else in human history ever really gave a shit.

    Hell, left wing “progressivism”, if you look at its history, is a secularized, more extreme *Christian* notions of social justice.

    You are a friggin’ moron.

    $hit, and *I’m* a f*ckin’ atheist.

  52. #52 |  Ann | 

    “Oh, come on. Did Bill Clinton push for and sign the largest new federal entitlement in 40 years? Did he create a new cabinet agency (that happens to be the largest bureaucracy in the history of the world)? ”

    I’m surprised that you don’t remember that his (unelected) wife held a closed door commission trying to hash out how they could nationalize 1/7 of the economy.

  53. #53 |  DelD | 

    Interesting theory, but, to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a sexual aid.

    The problem with this sort of reasoning is that if flies in the face of Occam’s Razor.

    If Slick Willie screwed up, the simpler answer is that he just misjudged how the electorate had changed in the last eight years, and underestimated the desire to be done with Bushes and Clintons.

  54. #54 |  CatoRenasci | 

    It would not surprise me in the least of WillyJeff was semi-unconsciously sabotaging Hillary, but he’s conflicted: on the the one had, having her in the White House will protect his legacy and help keep him out of the big house, but, everything has always been about him, and if she’s president, then it’s not just about him — it’ll be worse than now, because she’d be the first woman elected, he’d become a footnote, an amiable roue sandwiched between two Republicans who won wars. He’d loom a lot smaller in history….

  55. #55 |  Letalis Maximus, Esq. | 

    Remember, we are after all talking about a guy who took time out from the 1992 campaign to proudly fly back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector (a mental cripple). Just to prove that he was tougher on crime than the Republicans.
    We still don’t know, and I hope we never have to find out, the depths to which this man is capable in order to get what he wants.

  56. #56 |  ProdigalSon | 

    Dick Morris laid out the “race baiting” strategy that the Clintons were about to engage in before it even played out. I thought he was crazy at the time, and I could not see how it would work or why Morris would think it would play out that way at the time. Now, I wonder if maybe Bill and Dick talked about the plans before they played out. If so, maybe Bill was making sure that his true motives were known, which certainly would sabotage the effort.

  57. #57 |  Brett | 

    I wouldn’t be taking lessons in Southern politics from a Hudson Valley mayor.

  58. #58 |  Joe H | 

    I think a more likely possibility is that Bill is losing it. Anesthesia and heart bypass surgery causes a significant amount of brain injury, especially in patients as they age. Bill seems really aged lately. He’s clearly not as sharp. He should have listened to the advice he got to change to a radical vegetarian diet and then not need the surgery.

  59. #59 |  Mister Snitch | 

    Bill’s not exactly a “we” kinda guy, is he? You make some thoughtful and valid points.

  60. #60 |  Poole | 

    FYI:

    Bill Clinton is barred by the 22nd Amendment from the office of President, which also makes him ineligible for the office of Vice President under the 12th Amendment.

  61. #61 |  jreid | 

    Steve L said…

    “Supposedly, the economy was booming (although there is some disagreement about that.)”

    Apparently Steve is too young to remember the Dot Com bust in April 2000 before the conventions were held. It was a lot of “disagreement” son.

  62. #62 |  tom swift | 

    I see some very strange assertions here about America’s resident Clown Prince.

    First off, he is no Alpha Male. Alpha Males are not defined by their chronic abuse of women. Clinton is a classic Sex Beggar – a pathetic object, and certainly not in any way a dominant. Clinton’s notorious psychological need for approval from almost everyone he encounters also puts him a long way from Alpha territory.

    Bill C. is indeed an outstanding politician, in the sense that a circus bear can be an outstanding dancer. We can be amazed that he remains on his feet after all his clumsy stumbles – but the stumbles are still his. Same with Bill – his extraordinary political problems were caused by his own political gaffes. Remember that finger wag when he told us that he did not have sex with that woman. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

    Of course for such a slick politician he was easily dominated by the press, right from the start. Remember how he was stampeded into mind-numbingly dumb, unplanned, off-the-cuff policies like “don’t ask, don’t tell”? He should have learned how to handle the press decades earlier – any competent politician would have.

    As a politician, I really don’t think he was (or is) very good. His mere survival is commonly taken as evidence of extraordinary skill, though you could say the same about my ex’s driving. He’s a political daredevil, but the results of his risks have been almost entirely sterile. He’s never really managed to do anything worthwhile. James K. Polk or FDR, he ain’t.

    And finally, remember – Bill C didn’t want to be president, he wanted to be Jack Kennedy. Compare Monica and Marilyn, and realize how total his failure has been.

  63. #63 |  Bob Hayes » Blog Archive » It Was All A Clever Plan | 

    […] Agitator opines: Bill is sabotaging Hillary on […]

  64. #64 |  shimrod | 

    Bill is no political genius. He wouldn’t have been elected the first time if Perot hadn’t siphoned off the non-republican conservatives, and he wouldn’t have been re-elected if the republican congress hadn’t made a success of the second two years of his first term. He, and the wife who has obviously put up with his antics only to enable her own ambitions, disgust most reasonable people. There’s no mystery behind Hillary’s fall. The only thing she had going for her was the aura of inevitability, and once that’s gone she’s got nothing. Good ridance.

  65. #65 |  Frank | 

    I think you’re giving Bill a bit too much credit. This is a guy whose entire post-presidency has been prep work for his wife’s run. I believe his whole “international-man-of-philantrophy” shtick was conceived to compensate for her lack thereof and round out “their” resume.

    If Bill really wanted to trash Hillary’s campaign he’d do it in the most natural and least subtle way he knows: He’d plant rumors about him hooking up with some babe on the campaign trail.
    Instant scandal, Hillary’s toast, and Bill gets to exit stage left with the boys thinking, “Hey, the old horndog’s still got it”.

    It’s more likely that Bill’s been out of the loop of retail politics for 8 years (Hillary’s Senate races were cakewalks) and, as good as he was, he doesn’t have the same edge anymore. Both of them are volatile people who must be furious that this isn’t going the way they planned, and they don’t have the White House or massive popular support to hide that emotion behind.

  66. #66 |  mockmook | 

    Radley,

    Do you even listen to yourself? You say:

    “Before I explain, let me say that I’m not a (Bill) Clinton hater. I actually like the guy. ”

    Then:

    “This is a guy who routinely uses women for his own sexual amusement, then tosses them under a bus when they become a problem. ”

    “He has publicly humiliated his wife over and over and over again, then counted on her to stand by him in the interests of his career–at which point he inevitably turns around and humiliates her again.”

    Then you give us this impeccable logic:

    “Clinton’s comments were calculated, but they may have been more sinister than even the activist I met knows. Clinton–perhaps subconsciously–was sabotaging his wife’s campaign.”

    Subconsciously==Calculated ????

  67. #67 |  E.G.: The Illegal Alien | 

    http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/breaking-news-photography/works/

  68. #68 |  peter jackson | 

    First, the drug war thing. Pot busts soared under Clinton. This could be due to many things, but it’s a fact.

    But to the subject of the post, I think everyone is making a big deal over nothing regarding Bill Clinton’s comments following South Carolina. The simplest (and therefore most likely as per William of Occam) explanation was that he was simply tripping down memory lane. No one remembers the ’92 primaries more than Bill Clinton. Those were truly his glory years, when he went from being a little governor of a two-bit state to being the most powerful man on Earth. Jackson was his Obama. Gore was his Edwards. He was simply remarking over the interesting parallels of his and Hillary’s campaigns. Trouble is no one remembers the ’92 democratic primaries but him, so no one knew what he was talking about, so now everyone is projecting all of these sinister Machiavellian intentions upon him. It’s silly really.

    And by the way I don’t like Bill and voted against him twice.

    yours/
    peter.

  69. #69 |  Dennis | 

    I am a conservative that thinks what you have said has some truth to it. Why would Bill Clinton need to remind voters that Obama is black – that’s pretty darn obvious.

    I also agree with your comment (though my Republican buddies laugh at this) that Clinton is one of the finest political infighters of this, or any other, generation.

    Let me offer this: Bill Clinton understands the electorate. I think that many Democrats believe that a black man cannot be elected President. In an election where Democrats should win in a walk, it is risky enough to attempt to elect a female – but a black man is something else again. Why, the argument goes, would we take a chance on what should be a sure thing?

    Frankly, it appears that a Biden or a Dodd would have been a shoe-in.

    Here’s the Dem’s problem. If Obama wins the nomination you lose votes for two reasons – the color of his skin and the fact that the Republicans will offer an acceptable alternative in the moderate John McCain. Remember this is not just a Rep/Dem race, you also need to figure in the Independents.

    If Clinton pulls this out with Super Delegates, Florida and Michigan then the Obama supporters will be as mad as Hell. Given her relatively high negatives to begin with, Clinton would be praying that the African American voters wouldn’t stay home. She would be accused to stealing the nomination away from their candidate.

    That is what I think the savvy Bill Clinton is worried about.

  70. #70 |  Seerak | 

    Christianity is the source of the modern notion of universal human rights & dignity

    That must be why the Dark and Middle Ages of theocracy were such wonderful eras full of the sweet light of freedom.

    Hell, left wing “progressivism”, if you look at its history, is a secularized, more extreme *Christian* notions of social justice.

    It sure is. That must be why life in places like Cuba and the erstwhile Soviet Union are and were such wonderful places full of the sweet light of freedom.

    /sarcasm

    There is a reason why the phrase “Kingdom of God” occurs multiple times in all translations of the Bible, Koran et al… but “Republic of God” or “Free Society of God” not once… theocracy is incompatible with the stateof society known as “political freedom” and which recognizes each individual as morally sovereign.

    You are a friggin’ moron.

    Google “psychological projection”.

    $hit, and *I’m* a f*ckin’ atheist.

    Ahistorical and illiterate too! Aren’t you the total package!

  71. #71 |  Vail Beach | 

    Sick if true. And probably true.

  72. #72 |  stan | 

    Nobody gave a damn about blowjobs. People I know were angry about Bill using an Army tank assault to kill a bunch of innocent kids while liberals cheered. They were angry about his use of the IRS and FBI to harass and intimidate opponents. They were pissed about the million dollar bribe to silence Hubbell and a variety of other examples of obstruction of justice in over a dozen legal proceedings.

    Some however, were just sick of all the sleaze — selling the White House, selling pardons, selling the Commerce Dept, selling the Interior Dept, selling CIA secrets, selling national security, stealing White House furniture — the lies, the perjury, the obstruction, the character assassination, the army of private detectives intimidating witnesses. SLEAZE.

  73. #73 |  ThatPoliticalBlog | 

    Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose? …

    Watching the last year or so of pre-election gamesmanship I, like the author below, had felt uneasy at all the seeming support Bill Clinton was giving his wife Hillary. As the uber alpha male we all know The Big Dog to be, how would Bill adapt to a f…

  74. #74 |  cthulhu | 

    All this talk about Bill in the White House again misses one essential issue — why Hillary would stay married to him for more than 20 seconds after the 270th electoral college vote is counted……either way.

  75. #75 |  Luther McLeod | 

    I’m sorry… but you lost me between here:

    “it seems almost quaint that we were all worked up over lies about blowjobs, doesn’t it?”

    And here:

    “alpha enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern”

    The rest is muddled…

  76. #76 |  John Davies | 

    I don’t like President Clinton. That being said, I don’t doubt he loves America.

    Maybe he just doesn’t think the woman he knows best should have the power of the presidency.

  77. #77 |  Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Did He Do it on Purpose? | 

    […] Balko presents a pretty compelling case that Bill might have subconsciously sabotaged his wife’s campaign.  My first thought on the […]

  78. #78 |  Kolohe | 

    Haven’t got a chance to read through all the comments, but I think you overstate you case Radley.

    “Few things happen by accident” but many do, and the train of the ‘nothing’s an accident’ leads to the Alex Jones -Art Bell stop on the logic Metro.

    I think despite Bill Clinton’s great talent, he made a mistake, in the same way that Brady (or Montana or Marino) threw more interceptions when the D-Line managed to get through and apply pressure.

  79. #79 |  David Chesler | 

    DJB: It was just a past performance thing – I was well-employed during the Clinton years, and had significant unemployment during both Bush presidencies. (I lost a great job and was out for half a year when the current administration pushed NASA to do nothing but space, so my department, doing advanced research and development in air traffic control for NASA, got defunded. Otherwise at best it’s the general economy, or just random correlation.)
    I entered the labor force mid-way through Reagan. I had co-workers a few years older who had investable money and did well on investments or real estate, and classmates who went into finance did well, but I missed that boat, and somehow later I missed the dot.com boom doing desktop applications. (Granted nothing happened to me on Black Monday 1987 either, and I only lost income during the dot.bust.)

  80. #80 |  nom de guerre | 

    heck, while we’re at it, let’s revisit that whole “bubba the political genius” thing. it’s pretty clear by now he’s no alpha male, and never was – loved the “sexual beggar” comment – so if THAT was a myth, just maybe his “political genius” is too.

    what exactly were his political triumphs?

    managed, with the help of a 3rd party candidate stronger than any 3rd party guy of the last 80 years ….. running against laughably inept GOP candidates …. managed to (barely) get elected twice.

    managed, with the help of a suspiciously united democrat party, (why is it that republicans who go off the reservation are called “feisty mavericks”, and democrats who do the same are called “uncle tom quislings”?) AND a typically spineless GOP senate, managed to avoid being convicted at his impeachment trial.

    now let’s compare that list of *2* triumphs to a short list of his failings:
    1) his attempted takeover of 1/7th of the economy went down to crushing, humiliating, emasculating defeat
    2) as a direct result of his political idiocy above, his party lost control of the house for the first time in forever
    3) as a direct result of THAT, he was forced to cancel pretty much ALL his grandiose plans, and was reduced to taking credit for things he’d earlier campaigned AGAINST, such as welfare reform
    4) foreign policy debacles that all seemed to feature a suspicious willingness to bomb/invade any country he decided needed it; while simultaneously terrified of using soldiers as the should be used: risky, bloody boots on the ground.
    5) his unforgivable humanitarian failings re the rwandan butchery
    6) being *profoundly stupid* enough to give his political enemies grounds for his own impeachment
    7) a **president** fined and disbarred from practicing law?

    and on & on. bubba held office in good economic times, times so good even HE (and the tax increases he lied about on the campaign trail) couldn’t screw them up, so he certainly gets credit for that. but that don’t make him a political genius. unless you’re also willing to stipulate that warren g. harding was equally geniuslike: harding’s economy was also most impressive.

    what exactly did the guy win at? ever?

  81. #81 |  >bt: Quote of the Day | 

    […] Radley Balko, from “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?” […]

  82. #82 |  TGGP | 

    I’m not a (Bill) Clinton hater
    You should be.

  83. #83 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > I believe I’ve described Hillary as both a “neocon”….

    If the thoroughly socialist Field Marshall Rodham can be accurately described as “neocon” for supporting a war and letting government run roughshod over civil-liberties, then so also can Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

    At least we don’t have to stare at her chipmunk cheeks on a dime yet.

    ==//==

    Rescuing the very last copy of this off Google groups, which has silently “disappeared” much of the contents of alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:

    Dr. Seuss Meets Mr. Clinton

    I did not do it in a car.
    I did not do it in a bar.
    I did not do it in the dark.
    I didn’t do it in Fort Marcy Park.

    I did not do it on a date.
    I did not ever fornicate.
    I did not do it at a dance.
    I did not do it in her pants.

    I did not get beyond first base.
    I did not do it in her face.
    I did not do it in a holy snit.
    I did not do it in an oven mitt.

    I never did it in a bed.
    If you think that, you’ve been misled.
    I did not do it with a groan.
    I did not do it on the phone.

    I did not cause her dress to stain.
    I never boinked Saddam Hussein.
    I did not do it with a whip.
    I never fondled Linda Tripp.

    I never acted really silly
    With volunteers like Kathleen Willey.
    There was one time, with Margaret Thatcher,
    I chased her ’round, but could not catch her.

    No kinky stuff, not on your life
    I wouldn’t, even with my wife.
    And Gennifer Flowers’ tale of woes
    Was paid for by my right-wing foes.

    And Paula Jones, and those State Troopers
    Are just a bunch of party poopers.
    I did not ask my friends to lie.
    I did not hang them out to dry.

    I did not do it last November,
    But if I did, I don’t remember.
    I did not do it in the hall.
    I could have, but I don’t recall.

    I never did it in my study.
    I never did it with my dog, Buddy.
    I never did it to Sox, the cat.
    I might have–once–with Arafat.

    I never did it in a hurry.
    I never groped Ms. Betty Currie.
    I never got wood for Mary Mahone.
    I never wanted Ms. Wise to blow me.
    I never chased Dee Dee Myers.
    I never, with a pair of pliars.

    I’ve never tasted brown sugar.
    Or holed Jerry Parks with a Luger.
    There was no sex at Arlington.
    There was no sex on Air Force One.
    And Danny Williams is not my son.

    I might have copped a little feel
    And then endeavored to conceal.
    But never did these things so lewd,
    At least, not ever in the nude.

    These things to which I have confessed.
    They do not count, if we stayed dressed.
    It never happened with cigar.
    I never dated Mrs. Starr.

    I did not know this little sin
    Would be retold on CNN.
    I broke some rules my Mama taught me.
    I tried to hide, but now you’ve caught me.

    But I implore, I do beseech
    Do not condemn, do not impeach.
    I might have gotten a little tail
    But never, never did I inhale!

  84. #84 |  From the Specific to the General « Just Above Sunset | 

    […] has laid low since then, or at least been more circumspect, but Radley Balko has a rather novel idea regarding what that was all […]

  85. #85 |  NikFromNYC | 

    [They don’t come much more alpha male than Bill Clinton. The guy’s a walking erection. I can’t imagine anything more emasculating to an alpha-alpha like Bill than to watch his wife arc over him–for her to become more powerful than he. Actually, it’s quite a bit worse than that. Hillary Clinton was on the verge of not only becoming more powerful than Bill, she was ready to become the most powerful person on the planet. Not only that, she was about to do so by assuming the very office Bill once held, but (probably) won’t ever hold again. Bill, on the other hand, would be relegated to first lady. I can’t see how that wouldn’t mess with the psychology of a guy like Clinton.]

    Like, dude state the obvious first level dynamic, yet miss the main one? Bill can’t campaign for Obama, but if Obama becomes president, Bill’s legacy as statesman goes way up, whereas if his ugly old frigid wife becomes president, he’s toast. It’s about time FEMINISM came to end end, just as Obama would put and end to the LEFIST race card, since he’s spurned the old extortion-based race bating riot mongers like Janet or Jesse Jackson, and Cop Killer hero JT (who? I dunno!).

    Look, Jesus Christ was a black guy, O.K.? Clinton wants a real legacy, that I as a libertarian would support, as long as he keeps that SOCIALIST (vs. centralist) busybody tag-along wife of his on the sidelines. Obama might screw the country up, but there’s some case to be considered, that he might instead, KICK F*CKING ASS IN THE MIDDLE EAST *F*O*R* *R*E*A*L* (“take it to Pakistan), as well as end, forever, the Left’s “race card” *AND* ISLAMIC echo and maybe, finally once again make our country’s very stability be a notion of no longer allowing male presidents to be elected who have a quoted “we are the president” attitude.

    How the leader of the free world had to grovel just to get some twenty year old ass! No wonder was not able to vaporize Obama. Hilary said stop. She wanted to do it, 2009, as she was teaching her decidedly ugly daughter to rise to power by pandering to hippie dudes who spoke of running for local office.

    Clinton/Gore 2020, after Obama fails to find a fake crisis to play off of. Wait though. Maybe Obama is one of the few politicians in history that can rouse a crowd without needing propaganda?

  86. #86 |  Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose? « Strickenfancy | 

    […] The Agitator » Blog Archive » Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose? […]

  87. #87 |  Santiago | 

    A little paranoid there, man.

  88. #88 |  newscaper | 

    #70, Seerak,

    So you’re one of those fabled “nuanced” thinkers who seems incapable of actually comprehending anything beyond than bumper-sticker complexity…

    About medieval and later nastiness in the name of Christianity, I specifically addressed that in my original comment. It’s only the cartoonish anti- view of Christianity that is stupid enough to treat it as monolithic. Google the Scholastics, for one thing.

    Also, the terrible things done in Christian Europe were in no way unique to it, but rather, the reformation & rejection of the worst of those abuses came from *within* it, from certain strands of Christian thought. Admittedly, once it began spreading to the gentiles, formerly purely jewish Christianity became somewhat Hellenized, with another later leavening during the Renaissance, but if you’ll recall your history, to the extent that Greeks and Romans thought about equal rights, they only applied to… fellow Greeks and Romans. It was Christianity that planted the seed for universality.

    As to “theocracy”… *nowhere* do the Gospels say to establish an earthly “Kingdom”, other than in the hearts of fellow believers. There is certainly *no* counterpart to the totalitarianism that is Islamic sharia.

    FWIW I did *not* say that the concept of individual freedom is exclusively a Christian idea (matter of fact I think I specifically said the contrary). Nor do I think that “liberty” –or “ordered liberty” as the Founders sometimes preferred to put it– logically depends on Christianity. But it is absolutely true that Christianity served as the… the scaffolding if you will that brought the modern notion of individual rights & liberty to life. To insist otherwise is willfully ahistorical. For God’s sake, read Jefferson & John Locke.

    I’ll also add that I am NOT one of those idiots who want to insist that America is specifically “Christian” (or worse, bibilical) in its founding — like you, if I may presume, I think the ideals of the Founding Fathers transcend Christianity… but to refuse to acknowledge that those ideals are at least “of Christianity” in terms of philosophical origins, as again lying about history.

    Actually, US history has a pretty good parallel to our disagreement about Christianity — you would seem to hold that the existence of slavery up thru the Civil War somehow refutes “We hold these truths…” rather than being a failure, an exception, to live up the ideal.

    You’ll also note I said nothing about totalitarianisms such as communism in my comment about the origins of “progressive” thought. Again, I’m talking about historical development. Actually, communists try to create a secular literal version of that “Kingdom”, a paradise on earth that so got you going, that I pointed out Jesus never said to try to do, sure as hell not by force. Of course that has always ended in horrible failure becasue it ignores real human nature (and therefore economics). FWIW, a Christian might say that the damage due to progressive & socialist thought finding its extreme manifestation in bloody communism, is because those original lofty ideals *were* unmoored from Christianity.

  89. #89 |  newscaper | 

    NikfromNYC said
    “Maybe Obama is one of the few politicians in history that can rouse a crowd without needing propaganda?”

    LMAO! Instead he’s using pure vapor about “change”!
    Gimme a friggin’ break. He’s hardly the poster child for saying things of hard hitting substance, with specifics based on principles.

    Thompson probably came the closest to doing that consistently. Hell, even Hillary does a better job, although of course I think she’s dead wrong in most things.

  90. #90 |  Pablo | 

    What about his comments about Obama’s Maine victory? After the firestorm on the South Carolina comments, the only explanation for the Maine comments can be sabotage. Either that, or he’s just lost it – which I guess is possible. I’m no Clinton fan, but you gotta admit, the guy is (was?) politically savvy.

  91. #91 |  dave | 

    concerning the McCain remark…i think at the time he feared a McCain-Hillary contest and he wanted to give Republicans more of a reason to vote against McCain. Being a friend of a Clinton seems like a good reason to vote against someone if you are in fact a basehead Republican.

  92. #92 |  Is Bill destroying Hill for his legacy? | The Anchoress | 

    […] an email from a reader directing me to Striken Fancy, who had linked to The Agitator who wonders if Bill Clinton is deliberately trying to sink Hillary? I thought at the time that Bill […]

  93. #93 |  EclectEcon | 

    Did Bill Clinton Try to Sabotage Hillary Clinton’s Campaign On Purpose?”The guy’s a walking erection.”…

    Here is one theory from The Agitator (via the Adam Smith Institute blog):

  94. #94 |  Pat | 

    Taking the frame that is the Presidency that Bill stepped out of, and replacing the picture with Hillary would not be an ordinary act by someone who waited his whole life to be President.

    That’s why the theory has merit whether or not it is true.

    There aren’t many men who would want their wives to best them at what they considered their greatest glory in life, are there? If anything it would trivialize the office once held in so high esteem.

    But with the Obama wave, and its underlying Mickey Mouse loyalty theme, and feel good politics as pie in the sky worth groping for, it’s possible that the office has already been trivialized to a point beyond repair – and that would fit in with the Bush administration’s disrespect of it and its Unitary Executive theory.

    The Presidency may definitely be in crisis but it isn’t Bill or Hillary who put it there. Instead where electability has been so great a concern in 2008, it has fallen victim to popularity, not proficiency or competence or character as the pathway to its powers.

    If Clinton is as politically savvy as claimed, it might be the Presidency as an office which needs salvage, not necessarily his wife’s proposed place in it. That would be a fitting role for any past President as its current status is anything but admirable in its current state.

    Tinkering has its privileges, but there are still some things which probably not be tinkered with. The Presidency may be one of them.

  95. #95 |  Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose? : BigMouthFrog | 

    […] Is Bill destroying Hill for his legacy? […]

  96. #96 |  Ellen Mitchell | 

    What is it about conspiracy theories that you liberals love so much?

  97. #97 |  a dog-eared town | 

    Glad He’s Helping Her…

    I know they’re married and all, but does Bill Clinton really think he’s helping out his wife with comments like the following?
    Of his wife’s recent travails, he said, “the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionat…

  98. #98 |  A fascinating theory on Big Dawg the campaigner | folo | 

    […] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!While we salivate for NMC’s next installment of his bribery-case narrative, I’ll pass along something intriguing that op99 shared with me: a post at TheAgitator.com asking Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose? […]

  99. #99 |  Idkal » Blog Archive » Quote of the Day | 

    […] Radley Balko, from “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?” […]

  100. #100 |  Pajamas Media » Does Bill Harbor Ill Will Towards Hill? | 

    […] so much as exhibiting cluelessness that his remarks would be considered racist (although, as pointed out here, Bill used to be more savvy than that). Or perhaps (as I happen to think) it was an example of […]

  101. #101 |  Morning Links | The Agitator | 

    […] piece by Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons’ opportunistic bigotry in the 2008 campaign. I remember thinking at the time that Bill Clinton’s comments about Obama were so tone-deaf it seemed like he was […]

Leave a Reply