"I Did Everything But Fart In His Face"
As a writer myself, I'm baffled by Taylor Branch's decision to follow up his epic work on the truly historic Martin Luther King, Jr. with a book on a historical footnote like Bill Clinton. I just don't get how you go from such genuinely important subject matter to tabloid-level stuff. Call me crazy, but hey - he's Taylor Branch, so who am I to question him? Really, he can do whatever he wants - I just don't get the choice.
That said, from the excerpts, I see there's some telling - if not really "newsworthy" - snippets in the book. In particular, check this out:
Clinton exploded in rage during an interview with Rolling Stone's William Greider when the journalist confronted him about the economic impact of NAFTA on America's working class. He yelled at Greider, telling him "You are a faulty citizen. You don't mobilize or persuade, because you only worry about being doctrinaire and proud," and lumping him in with "bitchy and cynical" liberals." Clinton told Branch: "I did everything but fart in his face."
We know from John R. MacArthur's fantastic book The Selling of Free Trade that corporate CEOs were bragging that Clinton was deliberately using NAFTA to run "over the dead bodies" of workers and the environmental movement. So the revelation about Clinton's interaction with Greider isn't groundbreaking, but it is telling.
Greider is one of the best journalists in the last few decades - his body of work and his willingness to cover the forgotten stories puts him right up there with Bill Moyers. Similarly, NAFTA was one of the most consequential economic policies debated and passed in the last few decades. And yet, here we had a president being asked substantive questions by one of the best reporters about one of the most important policies, and here we had that president call that reporter "a faulty citizen" and later brag that he "did everything but fart in his face." Perhaps even worse, that same president insisted the concerns about millions of jobs lost and families crushed came out of some petty desire to be "doctrinaire."
That tells you everything you need to know about the inner workings of the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C. these days: Expressing concern for working people - or, godforbid, legislating on their behalf - is worthy of having your face farted on.
Maybe that attitude, expressed on so many other working-class issues, is why, as I said to start, Bill Clinton is such a historical footnote.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
President Clinton may not have been perfect and some of the policies like NAFTA need to be changed, but I would take him as President any day. He is an intelligent, compassionate, hard working man.
What the right wing media and Republicans did to him was appalling. While he worked on an anti terror program and wanted to address Osama they were more concerned about Lewinsky. Was he wrong, yes? but the security of the country and a yr of soap opera cable 24/7 about that issue was so damaging to this Country.
Richard Clark, Clinton's point man for anti terror, was completely ignored by Bush/Cheney. From day 1 they were focused on Iraq (way before 9/11) I would take a President like Clinton with his flaws, but great intelligence and work ethic to solve the complicate
You might read "The Clinton Wars" to see what he had to deal with and yet, still succeed.
Oh please .... the little blurb of the interview gives no context re: Clinton's response. Greider's just a great journalist who was asking a substantive question, as opposed to his usual attacks on the Clintons? http://www
"Historical footnote"?
Were you going for funny?
i seem to remember other times clinton received harsh questions and responded by attacking the questioner. what did bill do for his base over the 8 yrs he was prez? he will claim to have presided(caused) the good economic times; like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. maybe his lack of true democratic accomplishments resulted in the lack of enthusiasm and trust when hillary ran. given the revelations of the church report in the 70's that the cia had thousands of proteges they were bringing up and the well understand fact that many democrats specialize in providing repugs cover; it it would not surprise me if he was a phoney creation of the right. all the outrage was just theatre. with the conservative ownership of the press and vote counting industry i doubt we are going to see much progress for a fairer,smarter country. when you look at obama's continuation of bush policies,lack of prosecution for bush lawbreaking, and hiring of democrats in name only like rohm and summers: maybe what we have now is the black bill clinton. sometimes i wish i never had kids when i look at what they will have to deal with.
good post. Sobering. I hope there is better ahead.
Now BC is a creation of the CIA and the right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ........
"Maybe what we have now is a black Bill Clinton"? No.
Bill Clinton was competent.
The Democrats and Republicans are all voodooistas (unbridled free trade, unbridled deregulation, low taxes for the wealthy, never-ending war, privatization, union busting, export manufacturing jobs, etc.). That's why even when everyone knows deregulation caused the financial collapse and double digit real unemployment into the foreseeable future, a 60 Democratic Senate, 250+ House and a liberal President will not even offer significant reregulation (instead offering fig leaf reregulation). It's why that same Congress and President are escaating a depression-causing war in Afghanistan and maintaining Bush-level troop levels in Iraq, even though both occupations are clearly against US interests and acts of cowardice against geometrically economically and militarily weaker nations that offer no threat to the US. It's why that Congress and President won't pass EFCA.
The whole bunch -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- are on the take from the corporations -- kept in office by never-ending corporatist contributions and given extremely lucrative work in the event they lose their seats or retire. The whole thing is corrupt -- and that explains how it's possible for single-payer, universal, nearly free health care to be taken off the table even when the medical results statistics show it's cheapter than US health care per person and provides better health in all of the important statistical comparison (e.g. longevity, mobility, infant mortality, etc.)
So whichever party dominates, regardless of rhetoric, we get the same policies.
"The Democrats and Republicans are all voodooistas (unbridled free trade, unbridled deregulation, low taxes for the wealthy, never-ending war, privatization, union busting, export manufacturing jobs, etc.)."
No, not all, just the ones who get the most _corporate_ campaign contributions. That makes it easier for them to advertise, but the grassroots has sourcewatc
If the guy had a blow out in front of my home on a hot Texas August day and needed a drink of water, I might go out a pee on his tire...but no Water for him.
I'm sure he's crushed.
I'm getting the feeling we would have actually been better off with Hillary as President.
Please get over that feeling, both the Clinton's were/or nothing but power/money hungry.
For God sakes, their politicians.
Your opinion, despite all evidence to the contrary.
As opposed to who? Obama?
Hillary as president would have been an constant soap opera.
Really? YOU think so? A lot of progressives, like Gore Vid@l, are coming to the same realization as jsgaetano. http://www
Bill Clinton's latest is his praise for Olympia Snowe's public-option "trigger".
What respect I had for him, as our greatest Republican [sic] president is rapidly evaporating.
I still have Clinton fatigue. Sometimes it becomes nausea.
What a disgusting comment.
Does Clinton have a similar remark and similar contempt for the American public?
...three guesses.
Nobody could ever have more contempt for America than the conservatives.
Except the conservative wannabes.
Bill Clinton, like Obama, promoted Republican agendas.
Clinton,
Best republican president we've ever had.
Mr. Sirota -
You make an excellent point about the aloofness of Washington from the concerns of the working class. This is especially surprising as a characteristic of the Democratic Party, whose whole mission is supposed to center on helping everyday people.
I think you also bring up what may turn out to unfortunately be Obama's fatal flaw: however great a person he may be, however normal and likeable a guy he is, he lives in the rarefied air along with everyone else in the power structure of our country, Republicans and Democrats alike. He's a multi-millionaire, living in a bubble of physical and financial security. He makes six figures as President, he has great health insurance, his children go to an expensive private school, and so on. To be fair, his now-privileged life certainly wasn't handed to him on a silver platter. Anyone who has read his memoir or heard his compelling biography knows that. I can't say that he hasn't earned everything he's got; his is in many ways a quintessential American success story. (continued below)
And Obama is extremely well-attuned to the wants and needs of everyday Americans, a sensitivity reflected in his insistence on tackling problems like healthcare and education. But at the end of the day, for all his truly inspirational speechmaking and dogged commitment to solving our biggest problems, President Obama is still a millionaire politician whose campaign coffers are loaded with corporate money. Even if this doesn't affect his policymaking, it does keep many Americans from being willing to follow him; they see him as no more than an old dog with some new tricks, all talk and no substance. His genuine efforts to increase government transparency, to rise above partisan bickering, and to help the less fortunate do not make up for the giant gap that remains Obama and the millions who can't sell their memoirs for millions, or send their kids to upscale schools, or take a helicopter to Martha's Vineyard for the weekend. Or find a job. Or afford health insurance. Or make their mortgage payments.
Louis Fisher, in his biography of Gandhi, wrote that one of the main reasons the people followed Gandhi was that he "shared their hardships.
Michelle Obama actually seems to have the best instincts for the kind of solidarity I mean, from her organic garden to her trips to the farmer's market, to - don't laugh - her down-to-earth fashion choices. If Barack is to truly unite the country the way his speeches aspire, I believe he must commit to living in solidarity with the angry town hall protesters, the Tea Partiers, the uninsured, and many more. Only then will his most important opponents, the downtrodden and disillusioned who feel that their government is against them, be able to trust him and unite behind him.
As an unwavering supporter of President Obama, I hope he recognizes this weakness and is willing to do what it takes to fix it. If not, he may never reach his potential as a leader, which would be a terrible loss for our country and perhaps our world.
Clinton is globalist. It all went to his head.
Don't confuse the growth at the top of Willie's neck for a cranium; it is a head as in the head of a pimple. When the growth on WJC's neck comes to a head, it should be lanced.
Has anyone done a serious analysis of the Clinton financial policies (including supporting NAFTA), etc. and the economic prosperity we enjoyed during his administration. We had 22Million jobs created during his 8 years in office, and the general standard of living increased, but at the same time we had NAFTA, with the aggressive loss of industry overseas. I've never seen an truly comparative analysis that discusses the impact of NAFTA on the economy during the 90's.
If anybody has seen a discussion on this topic, please post a link or source.
thanks
Sorry, no link, but a few of the repercussions of NAFTA resulted in the massive influx of Mexican workers into the USA (no one in the media ever seems to mention this correlation) after NAFTA was implemente
correlation or coincidence -------i think you need to prove cause and effect to say it was correlated.
maybe the boom( 22 million new jobs) --was the magnet.
...look around you
Clinton is a phony, but not an ordinary one.
From the actions that we have seen from the Obama Administration, and his act of bringing in Clinton DLC Democrats and Bush carryovers, a few interesting question can be raised about Obama.
Is he any different? Someone who says that he is concerned about the middle-class but then takes actions which are obviously contrary to the middle-class?
Clinton showed Bush-41 how to get NAFTA approved so that he could sign it. Obama promised to revise NAFTA, or at least promised us that while telling the Canadians that it was just campaign talk.
Although Obama has been more successful than Clinton and Bush-43 in pushing hundreds of billions of dollars in the direction of the banksters, isn't Obama just walking in Clinton's shadow? And, to be fair, isn't he also just walking in Bush-43's shadow?
Spot on! And the best thing we can do is take the agenda away from Obama, and the Democratic Party, and Congress. Most Americans agree about the direction they want to go, and many Progresssives are willing to discipline the Democratic Party if it fails to follow the directives of the middle class.
The effects of these two presidencies have been so devestating to the middle class that I and many others would change citizenship rather than live in such a society.
I third that sentiment - but...
How can we take the agenda away for O and the Dems when they're just the other pro-business party with the same agenda basically as the Repubs - Self service?
Second and related observation: with no countervailing party to vote in/for with any chance for change - how do we discipline the Dems and hope for any results that are different?
New Slogan, my coinage: Change We Can Hope For. You could also spit in one hand and look for Easter eggs with the other I suppose eh? Snark off.
I disagree with the assessment of Mr. clinton. I believe firmly that he has been one the best Presidents we have had.
he was president during good economic times ----he didnt cause the good times.
True to the extent that we had bona fide good times.
How do you measure good times?
While manufacturing jobs were being shipped to China and elsewhere, and while foreign investors were putting money into our stock market and pushing the DOW upward, the MSM hired corporate shills to tout certain stocks and the DOW in particular.
If you measure good times by the DOW, we had good times during the Clinton years.
If you measure good times by the exchange rate applicable to middle-class labor and the purchase of necessities, and if you measure good times by bona fide future opportunities, then maybe we only had an illusion of good times.
Clinton, who was instrumental in shipping jobs to foreign countries, arranging for the U.S. Naval Port at Long Beach to be transferred to the red Chinese, and helping the leader of Dubai with his efforts to obtain control over other major ports, certainly has enouigh apologists and supporters.
Apparently, they don't mind that we had Enron-type accounting for the entire country during the Clinton good years.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
