And I don't think that it's race-based, but it has a class impact. And in Louisiana, if what you do affects poor people disproportionately, then, it will disproportionately affect black people.
This is cheap, ugly racial demagoguery, and dishonest even before you get to the demagoguery. He says the words "I don't think that it's race-based" as if he's being diplomatic- right after unmistakably saying that it is. Hey, we were helping black folks. We know what will reduce poverty, but "they don't believe in it" because they just want to help the rich folks. Also, there's the casual conflating of black with poor.
Note specifically the twice stated claim that he had "100 times as many people out of poverty." That's absurd on the face of it. How many people is he claiming were in poverty under Reagan and Bush senior, and how many is he claiming to have rescued? If absolutely every person in the country had been in poverty under Reagan/Bush, and only 1% managed to get out from under it in that time, Clinton's 100x number would still have been mathematically impossible.
You could spend all day parsing out the various dishonest and extremely unlikely statements. For example, he claims not to have discussed the upcoming vote on Supreme Court nominee Roberts with Hillary. "I have no idea what she's going to do. I haven't talked to her about it."
But forget the rest of his fraudulence and falsehoods here. They pale next to this purely calculated pouring of salt into our country's racial wounds.
Singer Kanye West got a lot of grief recently for a couple of remarks claiming that Bush doesn't care about black people and such. Now, that was foolishness, but it was just a cheesed off pop singer popping off at the mouth.
Bill Clinton on ABC, on the other hand, knew what he was doing, and did it with malice aforethought. Those are very carefully crafted words obviously engineered to stoke resentment and racial paranoia in the black community.
This is Bill Clinton's idea of being an elder statesman.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - adam
Really Al,
Clinton states facts, and you bumble on about demogoguery. Get a life.
2 - Shark
Al, this is really limp. I can almost see you gettin' bored with your own diatribe.
Parse these words again:
Clinton: "if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made."
Pretty simple stuff, bubba, but you got it wrong.
What, you needed a hard-on this morning -- and Clinton is a sure-fire dose of Viagra?
zzzzzzzzzzz...
BTW: Clinton is a marginalized has-been. Find a new Demon.
3 - DrPat
Yeah, Al -- it's not like Clinton gets any attention from the media, or has any connection to the corridors of power (like through a spouse in the Congress), or has any agenda, hidden or overt...
He's black, Al, that's why he gets away with the casual equation of black with poor.
4 - Silas Kain
Actually, Al, Bill Clinton has been doing a lot of good as an elder statesman. The inaugural session of the 5 - Silas Kain
Actually, Al, Bill Clinton has been doing a lot of good as an elder statesman. The inaugural session of the Clinton Global Initiative has received rave reviews. To see people like Paul Wolfowitz and Ted Turner share a stage last night at the summit proved to me that people of all political persuasions can come together and hammer out solutions to societal problems. As divisive as the Clinton Presidency may have been, he has taken advantage of his post-Presidency to accomplish a lot of positives. I would have liked to see more commentary about the summit here at BC. The work these poeple are doing is important and deserves our attention. The problem is that it's not a sexy ratings grabber that appeals to the voyeur in us. Pathetic, isn't it?
6 - Bennett
Ah Shark, ya beat me to it. Clinton's line about tax cuts for the rich is deadfuckingon!
BUSH: "Please America, open your wallets and give aid to the people affected by the hurricane."
With a nod-nod wink-wink to the top 2 percent of America enjoying billions of dollars in extra tax cuts, and then there's repealing the estate tax....
What a sham.
7 - Al Barger
Well Silas, you get right on getting us more commentary about this summit. I've never heard of it.
In retrospect, Bill Clinton was not particularly a radical president, or especially more liberal than others. He doesn't particularly have much firm philosophical beliefs to push, other than being pro-abortion. That seemed to be the only thing he wouldn't compromise on.
It was those politics of personal destruction that he's still engaging in. He couldn't just say that his idea of what will help poor people is different than Republicans. No, he's going for the hardest, ruthless partisanship he can muster. It's not that the Republicans have mistaken ideas about how best to help, it has to be that the Republicans hate black folk.
He COULD have gone on his high profile interview at ABC and talked about his summit, and praised Wolfowitz for attending and such. Instead, he did this.
8 - Silas Kain
There was a very informative special on CNN last night hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The discussion was frank and lively with a wide range of participants. I agree that ABC should have done more to discuss it this morning. It's just another classic example of Georgie S.'s obvious Democrat agenda.
9 - RogerMDillion
"accusing President Bush of callous indifference to black people."
Wrong, he accused his policies of being indifferent to poor people, and then explained that a majority of the poor people in Louisana are black.
Is that statement incorrect?
10 - exocet
RE:CLINTON
Well at least Clinton can string two consecutive sentences together to give you something to kvetch about. In contrast, our dear leader, Kim Yung Bush is a walking affirmative action quota for dwindling rich failed WASP types. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.
11 - Eric Berlin
Al, I think it's clear that your dislike of Clinton heavily influenced your opinion here.
First of all, George Stephanopoulos is the host of This Week, so he performs all of the major interviews on that show. Secondly, Clinton also appeared on Meet the Press this morning, where his comments were very similar.
Third, I think the accusation that Clinton is engaging in the "politics of personal destruction" is ridiculous. He made his views known in a very measured, reasonable, and intelligent manner. You might disagree, but I find your characterizations to be way off the mark.
Now, Shark: I strongly disagree that Clinton is a "has been." His Clinton Global Initiative is rather extraordinary in nature, and Clinton really does continue to redefine what ex-Presidents can do. Compare him to Bush 41 -- there's really no comparison. Of course, Bush the Sr. is entitled to retirement or semi-retirement, but it does highlight how active and energized Clinton is on a host of issues.
12 - Eric
You need to take a math class or stop letting your anger affect your reading of a math problem.
A hundred times more means exactly that and I think statistics show that the middle class dissapears into the lower class under the last two Bush administrations along with a little help from Newt. Just because Clinton brings it up doens't make it false :)
13 - RJ
Well, no matter what your political views, I think all reasonable people can agree that ol' BJ did manage to get at least one overt lie in:
he claims not to have discussed the upcoming vote on Supreme Court nominee Roberts with Hillary. "I have no idea what she's going to do. I haven't talked to her about it."
14 - Eric Berlin
RJ -
a) You have no proof of that
And...
b) Who cares?
15 - Scott
I don't see how that's a lie, RJ. They probably don't speak at all.
16 - Bennett
Yeah, I don't see Bill and Hillary chatting it up much these days. Other than terse conversations about whatever Chelsea might be up to. But discussing politics? Puhleeese!
Sorry RJ, that dog won't hunt.
17 - RJ
Look, if you are married, and your wife is a US Senator, and you are a former US President, and your wife is almost certain to run for US President in the next election, and the first US Supreme Court nominee in over a decade comes before the US Senate, there are only two reasonable options:
1 - This married couple will have spoken in great length about how she is going to vote
or
2 - It's a sham marriage, and they don't even talk anymore
If it's (1), then I'm right on
If it's (2), then BJ is an even worse liar, for playing a part of this phony "marriage"
18 - Bennett
Are they even living together?
He has his offices in Harlem, I have no idea where Hillary lives. For all I know (and I don't) they have been separated since 2000.
Besides, wtf difference will it make how Hillary votes on the Roberts confirmation?
He's a shoo-in.
19 - RJ
Sigh...
Look, either BJ lied to Mr. Snuffleupagus, or he didn't.
If he lied, well, then he's a liar (but we already knew that)...
If he didn't lie, then he is in a sham marriage. And that makes him an even worse liar, pretending to be in a strong marriage when the wife won't even talk to him about her job...
20 - Scott
I'll take option 2, RJ. I thought everyone already knew it was a sham marriage.
21 - RJ
"Vote for Hillary in 2008! She pretty much single!"
22 - Bennett
No, RJ. They stay married out of courtesy to their daughter. [cack]
Besides, a divorse would be messy, and public, and who needs that right now?
They don't talk politics. Hillary always believed that she knew WAY more than Bill on that subject, and she's spreading her wings and doesn't need her philandering husband's opinion at this point.
Sham marriage?
No, an average marriage. Or common at any rate.
23 - RJ
Okay, lemme get this straight...
Hillary is going to run for President in 2008. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
BJ Clinton, for better or for worse, is still a very popular public figure. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
When Hillary runs for President, she will use BJ Clinton (her "husband") on the stump. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
Hillary, when she is going for the Dem nomination, will face some challengers. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
If she votes for Roberts, there will be at least one challenger on her Left who attacks her for that. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
If she doesn't vote for Roberts, there will be at least one challenger on her Right who attacks her for that. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
So. In order to properly formulate a strategy for victory in 2008, one of the things she needs to take into consideration is whether or not to vote for Roberts. (Does anybody disagree with that???)
Now, does ANYBODY HONESTLY THINK that she hasn't brought this issue up with her husband, who happens to also be the guy who will endorse her for President in 2008 and then give a lot of speeches and appear in a lot of ads for her?
I think that's the only remaining question...
What do YOU think?
24 - Bennett
I think that with the array of issues facing our country, the Roberts vote is a small thing indeed.
I haven't heard Bill Clinton say anything negative about Roberts.
Or Hillary for that matter.
Since he's a lock to be confirmed, don't you think Hillary is smart enough (in conjunction with her advisors) to make the decision to say yea or nay without the input from Bill?
Your repeated focus on the "BJ" part is juvenile. Have you ever been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end?
Thought so.
Move on, RJ. You'll come off as more balanced and mature. Less like Anthony if you get my drift.
25 - Eric Berlin
RJ -- My only reaction is that you're insatiable curiocity about a marriage that you have, I presume, no real relation to.
I could care less about the inner workings of Bills marriage with Hill. If they profess to be happy, married, "happy," or "married," I could care less.
I don't know why you or anyone else is so hung up about this. I care about leadership and policy and politics. What they do on their off time is their own business.