Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1834)	6/4/2003 8:36:46 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

We will have an orgy of Hillary stories this next week. NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE - HOWARD FINEMAN The Poor Democrats Now that they have real issues to focus on, who comes and steals the spotlight: Hillary. So much for the "right-wing conspiracy" June 4 - Before Bill Clinton confessed, Hillary blamed a "right-wing conspiracy" for all the sex talk about her husband, the president. Now the chatter is back and so is the conspiracy. Only this time the driving force isn't the "right wing" or the so-called mainstream media. It's the Clintons themselves. PITY THE POOR DEMOCRATS, especially the ones running for president. They want politics these days to focus on questions such as: where are the weapons of mass destruction George W. Bush told us about? Where are the child-care credits everyone is supposed to get? But the media wants to ask different questions: what do you think of what Hillary Clinton writes in her new autobiography? Do you believe her version? What will Bill's book (out next year) be like? Does this mean Hillary is running for president in 2004 or 2008? White House political guru Karl Rove couldn't have planned it any better. Just as the Democrats and their candidates are gearing up for the 2004 campaign (their first ?straw poll? is next week in Wisconsin), along comes the Clintons to steal the spotlight and send the party plunging back into an era of chaos and recrimination everyone (except Republican operatives) would just as soon forget. Of course, there are positive things about the Clinton Years that Democrats want to brag about: 20 million new jobs, record run-ups in the stock markets, rapidly dwindling federal deficits and nearly a decade of entrepreneurial innovation. Al Gore?s failure to run on that record is one of the reasons why he lost in 2000. But rehashing the impeachment era isn?t a net winner for the Democrats, however much many (including many in the media) now regret the political harshness of that time. There are two prerequisites for the Democratic candidate in 2004: in the post 9-11 world, he or she needs to be ?strong? on defense; and in the post-Lewinsky world, he or she needs to seem personally mature. Yes, it?s true that voters don?t judge a political party based on the personal lives of its leaders. But why risk antagonizing voters if you don?t have to? Once upon a time?until only a few decades ago?the tradition was for presidents and their kin to go quietly into the good night, speaking softly and only when spoken to, writing memoirs after a decent interval and enveloping their words in a haze of impersonal historicity. They rarely if ever criticized the policies of their successors and never put their own dirty laundry out in bookstores. Even the saltiest of old dogs, Harry Truman, more or less bit his tongue until he let loose in Merle Miller?s ?Plain Speaking??20 years out of office. But the Clintons are not only front and center, they are in our face and will be until we (and they) cease breathing. Why? Well, one reason is the kind of society we inhabit, a society that the Clintons embody as much as anyone. Reticence, patience, good grace, all such qualities seem unthinkable. It?s a Cash-In world, the more embarrassing the turpitude the better for paddling up Amazon. Like every other superstar with something to confess, the Clintons know that their ?inside story? is a perishable commodity. The dish has to be served hot. Their saga would be worth even less if a Democrat manages to win the White House next year. Did the Clintons consider that ?telling all? now?in the lead up to the ?04 election?might damage the Democrats? chances? Maybe. Did they care? I doubt it. And certainly not after they considered that $16 million in advances was at stake. Hillary has another reason to make a big splash now: to get ?it? out of the way before she runs for president. She needs to be as blunt and candid as possible about her relationship with Bill to render the topic a boring nonstory by the time she announces her candidacy. Could that be this fall? I seriously doubt it. But you never say never in politics, especially where the Clintons are concerned. Substantively, Hillary had to hit Bill pretty hard. I had been told she would, and she did. She even goes so far as to hint that she considered divorcing him. Politically, she couldn?t have said a smidgen less, of course. Whether she said enough on that count won?t be decided by book buyers but by voters. I?m told that her husband is piling up manuscript pages at an alarming rate for a book expected to be published in the summer or fall of 2004, smack dab in the middle of the campaign. I?m told that he?s spent a lot of time chronicling his early years?his murky, melancholy family history, his childhood in Hope and Hot Springs. All that?s fine (and will make fascinating reading) but let?s get serious. People want to read the Good Stuff, and if he expects to cash in he had better be prepared to tell it all, and tell it in detail. msnbc.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1834)	6/5/2003 4:54:15 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793841

Imagine for a minute that Hillary had kept silent about the Lewinsky story. Don't you think she would be asked about it once or twice once it became clear that she was going to be a candidate? She's trying to tell the story now so that's it old news by the time she gets ready to run. Nadine, This story is already old news. Good grief we have all lived it for years already. And look at the current feeding frenzy by the press. Do you really think they would pass up a chance to do it a third time. Can you imagine Hillary wanting her new office to be the former sex playground of her husband and a young female intern? It will never happen...never. Americans will not stand for it. I understand you are saying the book is politically inspired. I don't disagree. But I do not live inside the beltway. There is much more to this than Hillary. This story affects families and home discussions with kids and grandkids. This story hits families where the rubber meets the road. Three of my five grandkids (Have I shown you their pictures?) have asked me about Monika and BJs. How many parents and grandparents do you suppose want to go through that explanation process again? How many want the Clintons force feeding this garbage to them and their kids and grandkids again? The two youngest grandkids are several years older now...We do not want the Clintons driving our family discussions. I asked my wife and daughters (all avid readers) if they are buying the book. They all said absolutely not. They do not want that trash in the house and around the kids. My family thinks Bill is guilty of gross moral turpitude and Hillary is a coward. Both are pathological liars. I do not think we are the only extended family with this view. unclewest