You know you love it:
And if you don't love it, just skip the post.
« The 2005 Energy Bill | Main | Everything's Coming Up Rudy »
More and More Table
16 Jan 2008 05:16 pm
Comments (30)
"You know you love it"
-----------
Ah, so the "Gossip Girl" audience is the target demographic of this blog. That explains a lot.
Unfortunately, Blake Lively is a hot blonde and Matthew is not. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gossipgirlnyc/1418857450/
Although he may have bigger tits?
Someone pass the question on to Marc and Doughat for discussion.
I think the personal dimension missing from this discussion--concerning the sources of Bill Clinton's venom toward Obama--is the VERY personal dimension. That is: Bill is working hard to get Hillary elected, going to the mattresses in NH when it looked grim for her and helping to pull her away from the precipice (mixed metaphor!), because getting her elected is his payback to her for sticking by him after L'Affaire Lewinsky and rehabilitating him as a public figure. If she hadn't stuck by him he'd have a far harder time showing his face in public today and he certainly wouldn't be treated as a respected elder statesmen. (When you think about it, it's astounding that he is treated that way. My personal view.) What if Hillary loses? Maybe she'll stop sticking with him. It's a possibility. Even if she wouldn't leave him, she's always got Lewinsky to hold over him; she can trash him any time she pleases, as she never has done, even without filing for divorce, and he will be disgraced all over again. This, to me, is the real "deal" they've got, not the c. 1972 plot that Gerth and Van Natta allege.
BTW, it is deeply true that the Democratic base can't deal with how Clinton disgraced his party, his office, and the country. The GOP went thermonuclear on him and turned him into a roguish hero in Dem circles. Imagine if they hadn't gone so far over the edge. Clinton might be living in a cave somewhere.
I know you guys hate Sen Clinton, but why is it necessary for ambinder to begin the session with a complete lie?
I think Mr.Yglesias has a personal resentment towards Mr.Clinton.
Am I wrong in thinking that the Clinton years were at least a point of light in-between two awful presidencies, no matter how dim they seem to the magnesium utopia that burns in Ygloo's brain?
Thank God there was a Democrat in the White House for those 8 years.
Bill was a talented politician, nevertheless he is also a narcissistic asshole who couldn't keep his fly zipped, putting his own selfish interests above those of his party and country.
I don't want that loose cannon in the White House again.
Why does Marc Ambinder think the Lewinsky scandal took place in 93-94?
You guys have more "Atlantic" covers in this video than FOX News has American flags. And I didn't think that was humanly possible.
Here's my completely speculative psychoanalysis:
Bill knows deep down that he is a superior politician to Hillary on a certain level, and I think he thinks Obama is superior to Hillary too in the same way. Dowd called it being a "Natural." But I think that he thinks that this quality is not as important as intellect, experience, ability, etc. -- what he short-hands as Hillary's "heart and mind." Implicit here, of course, is that Bill thinks he is ultimately less deserving than Hillary to be president, as he (like Obama) has this salesman-esque quality, but Hillary is the "real deal." His frustration is with the media and the voters, frankly, because they are not "getting it." Sometimes this frustration gets the better of him, and he looks like he wants to positively strangle Obama.
Why does Ross go "ghetto" with his eyes all the time when making a point? It's like "listen to what to I'm saying or I'll kick your teeth in".
Meanwhile Matt is definitely honing his "pontificating" skills here, no doubt for a future political run for office or possibly an advisory role in some future administration. (Needless to say, any Administration who takes his advice should be nuked immediately.)
Overall, this table was better than the last couple of episodes (which isn't saying much.)
Doug, I don't think Bill feels any "payback" is due Hillary. He's selfish enough to believe that her sticking by him after Monica was done for the same reason he's sticking by her now - it's all about the power and greed. If she had divorced him after Monica, personally I think she would done okay - at least if she had been able to latch on to some other rich guy as a husband (running as a single divorced woman would be problematical) - clearly, she didn't think so. So clearly she assumes that having a former President as her husband is a major plus in her own political power fantasies.
Actually, in some sense, you may be correct. I see the Clintons viewing themselves as a "Crew" - a team devoted to getting power and wealth by any means necessary. They may not necessarily love each other, but they appear to have at least a recognition that they do well together and appear to believe they will do better together than apart. It's more a consort relationship than a marriage (something which I tend to agree is the better relationship whether it involves love and sex or not.)
There's no contradiction between this notion and the notion that they intended to run a Presidential dynasty from day one.
Clinton could have handled the Lewinsky case very easily. All he had to do was immediately hold a press conference and say, "Yes, I had an inappropriate affair with an intern in the Oval Office. So sue me. Now let's get back to business. Whatever happens from here on out is between me and my wife."
Instead, he had to get on national TV, wag his finger in the nation's face, and claim "I never had sex with that woman". (Of course, he was talking about Hillary with that sentence, but still...)
The real reason people hate Bill Clinton is because he's not only a liar, he's a bare-faced liar (and a perjuror). And so is his wife.
And, as I reiterated many times, they only proved it when they pardoned Marc Rich for a few measly thousands of dollars. It was the Clintons thumbing their noses at the electorate as they rode off into the sunset.
And now they're back, and they don't get credit for that, and Bill knows it, and it irritates him that he can't just erase the dislike people have for these two corrupt liars.
I keep hoping that the next generation of talking heads will drop some of the more annoying tics of their elders. From the head turns, it appears, alas, not to be so.
I keep hoping that the next generation of talking heads will drop some of the more annoying tics of their elders. From the head turns, it appears, alas, not to be so.
Lol at not getting the irony/humor of the head turns. I love the music, too.
The head turns are funny, but they also instantly destroy the credibility of anyone participating.
I mean, if you're that lame to do such a head turn, why should I listen to you on any subject?
You're supposed to just stare into the camera when your name is announced, either balefully or as if you couldn't care less who's watching. Watch how the pros do it, guys.
Doing it your way makes you look like suck ups and wannabes.
Oh, wait...
Matt,
OT, but if you can tear yourself away from politics for a moment turn on American Idol. My girlfriend thinks one of the upcoming auditioning singers is your shorter doppleganger.
Why does Marc Ambinder think the Lewinsky scandal took place in 93-94?
Exactly- when Ambinder talks about the whole Lewinsky thing, he gets most of it wrong. It didn't wound the Democrats- they gained extra seats in the 1998 election. And it wasn't traumatic for the country. Americans knew Bill was a horndog and an adulterer- I mean, the whole Gennifer Flowers thing was why Bill ended up being called the Comeback Kid, it dogged him in the primary. Again on the whole traumatic thing- it seems like most of the trauma was happening in the media and inside the beltway. And the hobbling that Lewinsky did to Bill's presidency is minor compared to the failures of the 93-94 era, failures that put those contract with america clowns in a real position of power.
Matt's point starting at 4:20 is very perceptive -- Clinton knows exactly the set of problems you run into when you're a charismatic newcomer to DC trying to run a Presidential administration. Obama is actually significantly less experienced at executive leadership than Clinton was in 1993. But they can't say, "don't elect Obama! He'll have just as much trouble as we did!".
I like the way that Marc Ambinder seems to read your mind at certain points. Just before you fire off a response he says "right" and starts going as if you had said something. Insert Lolcats picture here "Stay out of my head Charles! Nooooo!!"
Hardball, the next generation.
Pretty sickening, personally.
Yes! More Table.
Matt I have to say the head turn is quite goofy. The silent talking in the intro is also a bit 70s PBS.
And why is Marc driving every episode?
And actually in this episode Marc brings forward quite an unusual beast, one rarely seen up close out here in the real world; namely the Democrat who was pissed at Clinton for the Lewinski thing. The only people who are upset that I have met are republicans. I don't think I have ever run into a Democrat who sees that scandal as anything more continued 90s attack campaign writ large, and are therefore angry at the slime machine, not it's victim. I think alex hits it on the head. It was only tramatic to the pundit, chattering class. To most of the rest of us this pundit trauma is almost a complete mystery. So hearing Marc voice this is quite novel.
Yeah the Washington crowd seemed to have prevented an immediate legacy from forming during these Bush years, but that is only because Clinton surrogate and affiliates let them do it. And given the epic disaster of incompetence, deception, cronism, and corruption that the Bush Administration has manifested, holding back a Clinton legacy for Monica, is absurd by comparison. Gosh we had to endure a hyper-partisan driven nasty media cycle at the height of an Economic boom and peaceful world. What horrors.
I would actually like to see another episode of table where you guys play devils advocate to this position to really get him to suss out the reasoning behind this "pundit trauma" for the rest of us.
You should really need to close the lead time of these table things more frequently so you could have a tighter cycle that incorporates your audience feedback.
I mean it's not like you all have to be in the same location to talk with each other. It be very now to see you guys tune in with each other from where ever you are in the world on a more frequent and timely basis.
The Lewinsky affair is the major reason why George Bush is now president. Whatever Clinton's other virtues, which are many, that will forever be a huge black mark on his Presidency.
Why can't good Democrats recognize that the Lewinsky scandal was a witchhunt and also be pissed at Clinton for stupidly allowing himself to get caught up in it? I know plenty of Democrats who were and are pissed at him for that.
I used to love Bill Clinton, but I have come full circle. Reading about the whole Lewinsky thing now in light of Clinton's almost pathological commitment to saying whatever he has to to further his ambition, I cannot stand him. Obama is Clinton's conscience.
skipping...
Is Ambinder on crack? Lewinsky 'damaging to the country?' oh please, 70% didn't care at all.
Also, one big difference between Clinton '92 and Obama today, the establishment hated the usurper Clinton in '92 (and Carter in '76), while Obama today has gone out of his way to make sure they like him.
you need to get your head bob on.
I think Clinton is just jealous of Obama. Obama's got that Kennedy-esque aura that Clinton would have chopped his right nut off to acquire himself. Clinton is well respected as a politician, but he was never an iconic figure on the level that Obama seems capable of becoming.
Does Marc Ambinder really want to the the fat Atlantic blogger, playing the fat blogger?
I think we need stronger calls for a beard stimulus package in this video.
I think Barry's important point is getting drowned out: Why does Ambinder begin the discussion with a flatly false statement?
Bill Clinton called the idea that Obama had been a consistent opponent of the Iraq war from 2002-2008 a "fairy tale." He cited some statements showing different positions as the war evolved. That is not the same thing as saying Obama's "candidacy" is a fairy tale.
This appears to be the chain of information: Clinton's comments --> the press's somewhat misleading, but basically accurate coverage the next day --> the press's subsequent cursory and misleading summary of the "controversy" (Clinton said Obama's a fairy tale! Outrageous!) --> Ambinder's gullible brain --> The Atlantic video.
Isn't the Atlantic supposed to be *more* sophisticated, not *less,* than daily reporters on deadline?
Comments closed January 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Where is that fake library, anyway?
Posted by Antid Oto | January 16, 2008 5:27 PM