View Poll Results: Bill Clinton...

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • ENTp

    0 0%
  • ISFp

    0 0%
  • ESFj

    3 14.29%
  • INTj

    0 0%
  • ENFj

    5 23.81%
  • ISTj

    0 0%
  • ESTp

    1 4.76%
  • INFp

    1 4.76%
  • ENTj

    2 9.52%
  • ISFj

    0 0%
  • ESFp

    6 28.57%
  • INTp

    0 0%
  • ENFp

    0 0%
  • ISTp

    0 0%
  • ESTj

    3 14.29%
  • INFj

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 56

Thread: Bill Clinton

  1. #1
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Bill Clinton

    PLease vote.

    I will open a thread with a poll for every celebrity Rick DeLong has mistyped in my opinion...






    Last edited by silke; 09-11-2018 at 12:59 AM. Reason: updated links

  2. #2
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,022
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see ESTj

  3. #3
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *resurrects thread with a multi-functional boner*

  4. #4
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,870
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti-SLE
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bill - EIE-Fe
    Hillary - LSI-Ti

  6. #6
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are on crack. Hes delta extrovert, hes so weak willed and politcally correct theres no way hes beta.


  7. #7
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Obvious EIE is obvious.
    Touché.


  8. #8
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    You will never doubt that Bill Clinton is not an LSE after watching this:

    LSE because when you're president, you can do this, this and this, and you are good at organization and time management so you can get them all done. Cause and effect... He's rational because he is following his own train of thought and from beginning to end, hence he's a process type; if that doesn't help then “let's look at the facts; and look at his FACTUAL assertions” He like LSE repeats buzz phrases, to make a point by repeating them to emphasizing them. He uses people's own words against them. He owned Fox!!!! “I never criticized president Bush and I don't think this is USEFUL.” LSE criticize people for ill thought out things or pointless and badly handled things translating into what is USEFUL and not.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L251...feature=relmfu
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-nI...eature=related
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  9. #9
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    Ti-SLE
    I actually could buy that. With Hillary being LSI. Mirrors often get together. There's something quite irrational about Bill, imo. lol
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  10. #10
    Banned Jinxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI.

  11. #11
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i take my vote back

  12. #12
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE without a shred of doubt. ESE would be the only other possibility.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  13. #13
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
    i take my vote back
    There should be a way to do that...

    Did you watch the videos that I posted?
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  14. #14
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    There should be a way to do that...

    Did you watch the videos that I posted?
    not yet

  15. #15
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,022
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowisthetime View Post
    I see ESTj
    I'm sorry I wrote this 2 years ago. I didn't know what I was talking about. Clinton is SEE.

  16. #16
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowisthetime View Post
    I didn't know what I was talking about. Clinton is SEE.
    Lol
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  17. #17
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Fe- ENFj 6. A huge portion of presidents are 6 and 8. A lot of them are ESTj. A lot of ESTjs are 6 and 8. Clinton, however, is not an ESTj.

  18. #18
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I admit I can see Fe-ENFj, but I see very strong Se - stronger than a mobilizing function. So I say ESE with a strong subdued "demonstrative" Se.

    Time to drag out Dr. Reinin. Is Clintion tactical or strategic? A strategic thinker is orientated to the goal, a tactical wants better options because he is looking at the tool used and does not care as much about the goal. Clintion admin was pure tactics - he is very flexible and changed his goals easily to deal with what political "tools" were available to him. What I mean is his agenda changed with the political winds - very tactical.

    A strategic thinker would be seeking goals - he would a single goal, and would change his style to acheive that same first year agenda. Clintion's first year agenda all but disappeared when the opposition blocked it. That sounds like good politics, but where was he less of a politican? Monica!

    The Reinin Farsighted Trait:

    A) Farsighted types Inclined to solve problems by primarily using that information which they possess through knowledge and experience. Accordingly, their solutions are likely to be of a general nature.
    B) The search for the solution is explicit in the answer.
    C) “It is best to prepare in advance.”


    Farsighted types try to use knowledge to solve problems. Clinton views the world through a lens of legal theory and he often tried to solve problems in a legalistic way - using a lawyers mind rather than just answering the questions as they are. He was a defensive "farsighted" thinker all through the Lewinsky scandal. The public watched and laughed at what was a purely "farsighted" legal converstation over the adultery.

    Read the reinin trait called Farsighted. ... So Clintion responds with "I did not have sex with that woman." Sex meaning vaginal intercourse, rather than oral sex. "It is all in the meaning of what is, is" - That is a perfect fit for the Reinin trait called "farsighted" Using the knowledge of law, question decided the answer, he carefully prepared...
    Last edited by Saberstorm; 03-31-2012 at 11:07 PM.
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  19. #19
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae View Post
    Fe- ENFj 6. A huge portion of presidents are 6 and 8. A lot of them are ESTj. A lot of ESTjs are 6 and 8. Clinton, however, is not an ESTj.
    If by 6 you mean 3w2 then I definitely agree.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  20. #20
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae View Post
    Fe- ENFj 6. A huge portion of presidents are 6 and 8. A lot of them are ESTj. A lot of ESTjs are 6 and 8. Clinton, however, is not an ESTj.
    No. Just NO. He's all ESTj...everything he says is about FACTS. He even says it himself. How can you not see that?

    He's a Yielding type because he explains how in the limited time he was the president, he tried to do the best job with the resources that he had. Expressing several several times "them" and "us" Protects his resources and his opinions to the point of conflict, which people here are mistaking for "Se"
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  21. #21
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Clinton has the Reinin trait of being democratic : From Wikisocion:::::

    """Democrats Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
    Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
    Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
    Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
    Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved. """"

    Clinton's ESE democratic trait defined his presidential style: Eating at McDonalds with commoners, having many eclectic friends, hiring Republicans as political strategists and using them as cabinet secretaries...

    As an ESE Clinton was an Obstinate type: From Wikisocion:

    Obstinate types Ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.
    Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
    Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
    “I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”


    Clinton spread the Congressional PORK around freely, yet adhered to the Libearl ideal. He primarly defended the interest of the democratic party through good PR. He took credit for the results of the various policies, as it is the interest of a politician to claim creidt, but gave a slice of the budget to everybody.
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post

    Clinton's ESE democratic trait defined his presidential style: Eating at McDonalds with commoners, having many eclectic friends, hiring Republicans as political strategists and using them as cabinet secretaries...

    .
    What do you feel about SEE typing?

  23. #23
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have only been around goofball SEE men. I need to see an ivy leauge SEE to see what a really smart one is like.
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
    I have only been around goofball SEE men. I need to see an ivy leauge SEE to see what a really smart one is like.
    Hehe.... cool ! I guess they would still be goofballs!

  25. #25
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
    I have only been around goofball SEE men. I need to see an ivy leauge SEE to see what a really smart one is like.
    a smart one: Cesar Milan (The dogwhisperer) SEE-Fi

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    ENTJ

  27. #27

    Default

    bump

  28. #28
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    LSE final
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  29. #29
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bill Clinton: IEE or SEE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhT7Q20A_uY



    https://youtu.be/HYKubBpdRls?t=685

    President Bill Clinton: “. . . . not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, [we] are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our tax payers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workforce as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”





    https://youtu.be/tY3ZVmkAKyM?t=104

    “Bill Clinton was no friend to the working man. In fact, he was the starting of the demise of this country. Ronald Reagan scared the shit out of the Democrats so much that they decided to become like them. And so what Bill Clinton did is that he got in bed with Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, health insurance, and the Koch brothers. He [Clinton] started a thing called the Democratic Leadership Council with Al Gore. They had executives from the Koch brothers on the Democratic Leadership Council. They completely turned their back on the working man. . . . They deregulated Wall Street, which crashed the economy within ten years. That’s what Democrats did. Democrats did shit that Ronald Reagan could only dream about in his wet dreams. They [the Republicans] couldn’t pass NAFTA. George Bush, Sr. couldn’t pass NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to do it. Bill Clinton gave the cover to the other corporate Democrats to go along with it. That was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.” — Jimmy Dore





    “Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...crimes/545729/



    Bill Clinton: A Reckoning

    Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right? (CAITLIN FLANAGAN - NOV 13, 2017)

    The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved: History instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.

    Most of them don’t have police reports or witnesses or physical evidence. Many of them are recounting events that transpired years—sometimes decades—ago. In some cases, their accusations are validated by a vague, carefully couched quasi-admission of guilt; in others they are met with outright denial. It doesn’t matter. We believe them. Moreover, we have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.

    Believing women about assault—even if they lack the means to prove their accounts—as well as understanding that female employees don’t constitute part of a male boss’s benefits package, were the galvanizing consequences of Anita Hill’s historic allegations against Clarence Thomas, in 1991. When she came forward during Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing and reported that he had sexually humiliated and pressured her throughout his tenure as her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was an event of convulsive national anxiety. Here was a black man, a Republican, about to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and here was a black woman, presumably a liberal, trying to block him with reports of repeated, squalid, and vividly recounted episodes of sexual harassment. She had little evidence to support her accusations. Many believed that since she’d been a lawyer at the EEOC, she had been uniquely qualified to have handled such harassment.

    But then something that no one could have predicted happened. It was a pre-Twitter, pre-internet, highly analog version of #MeToo. To the surprise of millions of men, the nation turned out to be full of women—of all political stripes and socioeconomic backgrounds—who’d had to put up with Hell at work. Mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends, wives—millions of women shared the experience of having to wait tables, draw blood, argue cases, make sales, all while fending off the groping, the joking, the sexual pressuring, and the threatening of male bosses. They were liberal and conservative; white collar and pink collar; black and white and Hispanic and Asian. Their common experience was not political, economic, or racial. Their common experience was female.

    For that reason, the response to those dramatic hearings constituted one of the great truly feminist events of the modern era. Even though Thomas successfully, and perhaps rightly, survived Hill’s accusations, something in the country had changed about women and work and the range of things men could do to them there.

    But then Bubba came along and blew up the tracks.

    How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the 2016 Democratic convention. Some of his appetites, at least, had waned; his wandering, “Norwegian Wood” speech about his wife struck the nostalgic notes of a husband’s 50th-anniversary toast, and the crowd—for the most part—indulged it in that spirit. Clearly, he was no longer thinking about tomorrow. With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.

    When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. Hillary’s grandmotherhood was evoked to suggest the next phase in her lifelong work on behalf of women and children—in this case forging a bond with the millions of American grandmothers who are doing the hard work of raising the next generation, while their own adult children muddle through life. But Bill’s being a grandfather was intended to send a different message: Don’t worry about him anymore; he’s old now. He won’t get into those messes again.

    Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

    It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

    The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

    The New York Times published Gloria Steinem’s essay defending Clinton in March 1998 . . .

    Called “Feminists and the Clinton Question,” it was written in March of 1998, when Paula Jones’s harassment claim was working its way through court. It was printed seven days after Kathleen Willey’s blockbuster 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. If all the various allegations were true, wrote Steinem, Bill Clinton was “a candidate for sex addiction therapy.” To her mind, the most “credible” accusations were those of Willey, who she noted was “old enough to be Monica Lewinsky’s mother.” And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

    Steinem said the same was true of Paula Jones. These were not crimes; they were “passes.” Steinem revealed herself as a combination John and Bobby Kennedy of the feminist movement: the fair-haired girl and the bare-knuckle fixer. The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms. But the mood of the country has changed. We are in a time when old monuments are coming down and men are losing their careers over things they did to women a long time ago.

    When more than a dozen women stepped forward and accused Leon Wieseltier of a serial and decades-long pattern of workplace sexual harassment, he said, “I will not waste this reckoning.” It was textbook Wieseltier: the insincere promise and the perfectly chosen word. The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C. K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.





    “The Phallic Presidency:
    The Clinton Scandals and the Yugoslav War as Purity Crusades” by Lloyd deMause
    [The Journal of Psychohistory 25 (4) Spring 1998]


    Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton--adulterers, fathers of illegitimate children, prostitute chasers, sex addicts. [1] Why do Americans so often choose as leaders men who betray and humiliate their wives with their compulsive sex affairs rather than mature men who are capable of loving their wives and not betraying them?


    It is no coincidence that of the thirteen womanizer presidents listed above, all but two also commanded major military ventures, while the twenty-eight other presidents who were not unfaithful were more peaceful. It is useful to ask the obvious question: might nations, when they are ready to go to war, unconsciously choose their leaders as some primitive tribes do--for their ability to conquer both women and enemies?


    The consensus about Clinton initially was that, because he was a "draft dodger" during Vietnam, he wouldn't take America to war. Yet even before Yugoslavia this was quite untrue. Clinton, according to Ramsey Clark's book, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq [2], managed through his embargo of Iraq to kill one million Iraqi children--nearly as many as the number of Jewish children that were killed in the Holocaust! Clinton's delegated role in America seems to be to provide sacrificial victims in a way that doesn't stir up our guilt feelings: in Iraq by his "invisible" killing of children, in Yugoslavia by focusing on the expulsions of Kosovars that his bombing triggered and even in the case of his own scandals, where he provided America for a whole year with himself as a suitable victim to punish for our sins.

    That Clinton unconsciously volunteered to be a sacrificial victim is clear. The weeks prior to his starting his affair with Monica Lewinsky were filled with media reports and late-night staff meetings in the White House about how the Chief Sacrificial Priest Kenneth Starr was hot on Clinton's trail for sexual misdemeanors for which he could be convicted. Staffers warned Clinton daily not to risk another "bimbo eruption" lest he be caught this time. Yet Clinton, sensing the group-fantasy of sacrifice was asking him to volunteer as the victim, started the affair nonetheless, looking out the White House windows while he was being sexually serviced by her to see if Starr's snoopers were looking in.


    According to his biographer, Clinton's family role was also as a sacrificial hero, who was "caretaker and protector of the family" and of his mother, Virginia. [3] His alcoholic stepfather was so violent toward his mother that Clinton recalls him firing a gun at his mother when he was five, and little Billy "twice had to stop real violence when Roger threatened to kill Virginia." [4] Clinton's "Family Hero" role was of course what has made him such a superb politician, being able to sense the unconscious emotional needs of others and sacrifice his own values for the adulation he gained. There was little love in his family. His stepfather physically abused him during his drunken rages, and his grandmother, who was his primary caretaker in his early years while his mother was elsewhere, had a "fierce temper" and undoubtedly used "a whip" on him as she had done on his mother when she was a child.

    Besides this physical abuse, Clinton was also a rejected child, whose mother left him as an infant for two years with her mother while she moved to another city to learn nursing and then routinely left him while she gambled as he grew up. "I was raised in that sort of culture where you put on a happy face, and you didn't reveal your pain and agony," he says. [6] Psychotherapist Jerome Levin attributes Clinton's sexual addiction with hundreds of women directly to his lonely childhood:

    "Virginia Kelley [Clinton's mother] looks extraordinarily like Lewinsky. Kelley's hairstyle, heavy makeup, and the overall impression are strikingly similar to Lewinsky's. Bill Clinton, the man who had lost his mother, had found a replacement for her....His legacy as an adult child of an alcoholic compelled him to fill the emptiness of his childhood and to repeat the addictive pattern of both his biological and his adoptive parents..." [7]


    That Clinton repeated his longings for his absent mother with Monica Lewinsky can be seen when he said to Monica after she was transferred out of the White House, "Why do they have to take you away from me?", the same question he had for his mother when she left him as a young boy. Even Juanita Broaddrick — who accused Clinton of biting, assaulting and viciously raping her twice — looked very much like Clinton's mother, and was, in addition, a nurse like Clinton's mother.


    Of course, in addition to restaging the betrayal he felt by his mother, Clinton's continuous humiliations of his wife over the years can be seen as expressing his unconscious rage toward his mother for her early abandonment of him--with the difference that in his affairs he would reverse roles and he would be the betrayer and his wife would be the betrayed.


    Indeed, the Clinton scandal wasn't "all about sex," it was "all about loss." Clinical studies of sex addicts find they aren't "expressing their drives" so much as combating desperate inner feelings of maternal abandonment, impotence and self-fragmentation through their repeated conquests of women. [8] Feelings of impotence, not excess potency, is the source of all sex addictions. And wars.


    Purity Crusades--like the impeachment of Clinton and the Yugoslav War, which The New York Times described as a necessary "Cleansing of Serbia" [9] -- are periodically encountered in history, usually after periods of peace and prosperity. [10] They are usually conducted against "too much sexual freedom," with various designated sacrificial scapegoats. The most famous took place prior to WWI, with a hysterical Vice Commission closing down brothels and regulating dance halls. Before the Civil War, reacting to the feminism and new sexual freedom of the 1850s, purity reformers suddenly decided to "protect the sexual purity of America" by starting a civil war to clean up the "one vast brothel" in the South. Before the Vietnam War, following the first legal publishing of Henry Miller's books, Citizens for Decent Literature conducted nationwide letter-writing campaigns and harassed drugstore chains to stop the distribution of "obscene" literature. Time even ran a cover story in January 1964 on "Sex in the U.S.," full of shocked prose on how America had become "one big Orgone box of Freudian" pornography and promiscuity. America's Purity Crusade during Clinton's secnd term wasn't just about Presidential sex. From New York to California, cities were attempting to close down X-rated video stores, politicians were "outed" as adulterers as "the sex police runs around Washington checking everyone out," and television programs featured specials declaring "The whole nation needs to repent!" [11]


    That impeachment of Clinton functioned for a time as what columnists called "a renewal process" and a "cleansing of America" [12] seems odd until it is considered as an age-old device for purification of a nation for its hubris, its prosperity, its sinfulness. In ancient Mesoamerica, when the state became convinced its prosperity had made it too sinful, the Chief Priest would tear out the heart of its best football player on a sacrificial stage and present it to the bloodthirsty goddess, who might otherwise punish all the people by not raising the sun the next day. [13] The "Sacrificial Hero" was turned into a god himself since he, like Clinton, had willingly volunteered to be sacrificed. Thus Clinton's polls, which had been sub-par until his affair was revealed, soared to over 70 percent approval "for the job he was doing for his country"--in other words, for being a sacrificial scapegoat, a poison container for our guilt — an approval level never before reached by a peacetime president.

    That nations sometimes choose their leaders because of their personal emotional dysfunctions seems an odd notion. Of course, other nations often choose dysfunctional leaders--like Adolf ****** or Saddam Hussein--who have serious emotional problems, starting wars that end by costing the lives of millions. But we usually think: "not us." Yet I wonder. Many historians, for instance, now argue that America chose John F. Kennedy for his phallic cold war personality, so it should not have surprised us when he ordered the Cuban invasion and risked incinerating millions of Americans with Russian nuclear missiles during his Cuban embargo, saying, "If Khrushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it's all over." [14] In fact, it turns out that it was Kennedy's taunting of the Russians with a 1962 "practice invasion" exercise near Cuba that actually pushed Khrushchev into putting his missiles into Cuba in the first place. [15] With Kennedy, there was an intimate emotional link between his sexual addiction--requiring almost daily conquests of mistresses and prostitutes--and his equally compulsive need for military conquests. The same is true of Clinton. He has many of the characteristics of what Robert Tucker calls the "warfare personality"--self-dramatization, extreme narcissism, repeated feelings of conspiracies against him by enemies and an ability to call for a great Crusade that will defeat Evil abroad and cleanse the world of its sinfulness. [16] I would only add to these: a deep well of loneliness, frequent revenge fantasies and an ability to dissociate.


    That Clinton dissociated and distorted reality when he began the bombing of Yugoslavia is little reflected in the media, since Americans overwhelmingly have dissociated along with him on the key facts of the outbreak of the war. Virtually everyone tacitly agrees by now that the NATO bombing began because Kosovars were being killed, raped, and forced out of their homes. But that wasn't what in fact happened. Even the head of the CIA told congressional leaders the bombing would cause the Serbs to attack, for "military action could include the chance of ethnic cleansing...[since] if we stuck a stick in this nest, we would stir it up more." [17] Richard Holbrooke agreed, warning that bombing would undoubtedly trigger ethnic cleansing. The following report from the Princeton University student newspaper was the only one that gave the true figures about the actual lack of violence before the bombing began:


    “Key members of the U.S. Senate sat slack-jawed through a confidential briefing last Thursday from the Clinton administration foreign-policy team...After the foreign-policy wise men asserted that the United States has a moral imperative to stop the murderous Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, one senator asked: How many Albanians have Milosevic's troops massacred this year? The president's emissaries turned ashen. They glanced at each other. They rifled through their papers. One hazarded a guess: 'Two thousand?' No, the senator replied, that was the number for all of last year. He wanted figures for the last month--or even the year to date, since the president had painted such a grisly picture of genocide in his March 24 address to the nation....Nobody knew. As it turns out, Kosovo has been about as bloody this year as, say, Atlanta. You can measure the deaths [prior to the bombing] not in the hundreds, but dozens.”


    That the Serbs then used the NATO bombing as an excuse for the expulsion of a million Kosovars is not the same as proving it would have happened without the bombing. Any local sheriff knows that when a crazy bank robber has a bank full of hostages, one doesn't start bombing him. The bombing obviously triggered the expulsions, not the other way around. And a ground war is likely to trigger even more needless horrors. But the time is ripe in America after the recent years of peace and prosperity for a new war, a new Purity Crusade, a new sacrifice to cleanse us of our sins. Milosevic is an ideal ******-substitute, the Serbs, products of generally brutal childrearing, are ideal enemies, and NATO, as Madeleine Albright once told Colin Powell, is an ideal instrument of war, saying that, after all, "What is the use of this marvelous military force if we can never use it?" [18] We have entered a new war trance; the ritual sacrifice may now begin.



    1. Wesley O. Hagood, Presidential Sex: From the Founding Fathers to Bill Clinton. New York: Citadel Press, 1996.


    2. Ramsey Clark, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq. New York: World View Forum, 1996.


    3. David Maraniss, The Clinton Enigma. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998, p. 49.


    4. Nancy Collins, “A Legacy of Strength and Love.” Good Housekeeping, November 1995, p. 115.


    5. David Maraniss, First in His Class: The Biography of Bill Clinton. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 22.


    6. Newsweek, March 30, 1992, p. 37.


    7. Jerome D. Levin, The Clinton Syndrome: The President and the Self-Destructive Nature of Sexual Addiction. Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1998, p. 19


    8. Patrick J. Carnes, Don’t Call It Love. New York: Bantam Books, 1992.


    9. The New York Times, May 9, 1999, p. D1.


    10. Lloyd deMause, “American Purity Crusades.” The Journal of Psychohistory 14 (1987): 346-347.


    11. MSNBC-TV, August 19, 1998; WABC-TV, September 18, 1998.


    12. MSNBC-TV, December 19, 1998, The New York Times, December 11, 1998, p. A35.


    13. Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, Eds., The Mesoamerican Ballgame. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991


    14. Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993; Theodore C. Sorensen, The Kennedy Legacy. New York: Macmillan, 1969; James N. Giglio, The Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1991.


    15. Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, “One Hell of a Gamble”: Chrushchev, Castro & Kennedy, 1958-1964. New York: Norton, 1997, pp. 166-170.


    16. Robert C. Tucker, “The Dictator and Totalitarianism.” World Politics 17 (1965): 555-583.


    17. Stephen R. Shalom, “A Just War?” Z Magazine September 1999, p. 28.


    18. Z Magazine, May 1999, p. 32.




    “The Clinton Scandal and Attacking Iraq” by Lloyd deMause

    http://www.geocities.ws/kidhistory/scandal.htm

    Washington, Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Bush, Clinton--compulsive womanizers, mistress collectors, fathers of illegitimate children, prostitute regulars, sex addicts. Why do Americans so often choose as our leaders such macho personalities, constantly humiliating their wives with their sexual affairs, rather than choosing people who can really love their spouses and not betray them?

    It is no coincidence that of the 12 presidents listed above who were womanizers all but 2 also commanded major military ventures--assuming Clinton will eventually bomb Iraq as he is threatening--while the 29 other American presidents were far more peaceful. Might modern nations sometimes unconsciously choose their leaders like New Guinea tribes choose their Big Men--for their ability to conquer both women and enemies?

    Americans are currently quite enthusiastic about Clinton's threats to bomb Iraq. According to Ramsey Clark's book, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq, Clinton's embargo already has killed one million Iraqi children--as many children as were killed in the Holocaust--even though it hasn't deterred Saddam from his military preparations. Nor will massive bombing of Iraq now deter Saddam from anything; it will just contribute further to our genocide of children.

    The macho conquest personalities of our leaders do not really surprise us, of course, since we are so often warned of them before electing them. That Bill Clinton—whose mother left him at birth for two years and who had a violent, alcoholic father—might have been a sex addict was suspected while he was still a candidate. Since he was the Democratic front-runner after admitting infidility on 60 Minutes, perhaps his infidelities only made him more qualified to be president in our minds. The media had already widely reproduced his sexually explicit telephone conversations with Gennifer Flowers, and since the voice on her tapes was unmistakably his, we all knew it was him telling her to "hang tough..if everybody's on record denying it, you've got no problem." So when Monica Lewinsky reportedly now says she was told "there were only two people in the room and if both of you say nothing happened, nothing happened," we shouldn't be surprised that Clinton might suggest lying to cover up his affairs.

    As a professional psychohistorian, I began my file on "Clinton's Sexual Addiction" during the Flowers revelations, and as the file grew thick with evidence I wasn't surprised when he was quoted in the Lewinsky tapes as saying he had affairs with "hundreds" of women. Even though Lewinsky may exaggerate, she isn't clinically psychotic nor obviously delusional, so the tapes probably don't just contain hallucinations. I have been particularly struck while collecting my evidence on his sex addiction by how Clinton's continuous humiliation of his wife seemed to express his unconscious anger toward his mother and restage the betrayal he must have felt by her early abandonment of him--except that through his affairs he became the betrayer and his wife was the betrayed. Clinical studies of sex addicts find they aren't just "expressing their drives" so much as combating inner feelings of maternal abandonment, impotence and self-fragmentation through their repeated conquests of women. That so many American men are now expressing in their jokes a thinly-veiled admiration of Clinton's conquests only shows how dysfunctional many men still are. If he eventually falls from office, this equally could be interpreted as his being a sacrificial scapegoat for our sinful wishes.

    That nations choose their leaders because of their personal emotional dysfunctions seems an odd notion. Of course, other nations often choose leaders--like ****** or Saddam--who have serious emotional problems, starting suicidal wars that end by costing the nation the lives of millions. But not us. Yet a good case could be made that America chose JFK because of his hawkish macho personality, beginning with his claiming a wholly illusory "missile gap" with the Russians. It should not then have surprised us then when he then led the Cuban invasion and even risked incinerating millions of Americans by Russian missiles through his Cuban embargo saying, "If Krushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it's all over." With Kennedy, there was an intimate emotional link between his sexual addiction--requiring continuous conquests of mistresses and prostitutes--and his equally macho cold war actions.

    That we use leaders as containers for our sexual and aggressive fantasies is responsible for many of our political problems, and could now lead to a useless bombing of the Iraqi people for Saddam's "rubbing our nose in the dirt." Should our bombs hit his anthrax plants, only American troops--not Iraqi civilians--are innoculated against anthrax. That our personal problems could lead to our setting off a plague in the Middle East which could kill more millions means that Bill Clinton may not be the only sacrificial victim in this deadly emotional drama.




    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-knew/546170/

    What Hillary Knew

    ‘Hillary Clinton once tweeted that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” What about Juanita Broaddrick?’ (CAITLIN FLANAGAN, NOV 17, 2017)

    If the ground beneath your feet feels cold, it’s because hell froze over the other day. It happened at 8:02 p.m. on Monday, when The New York Times published an op-ed called “I Believe Juanita.”

    Written by Michelle Goldberg, it was a piece that, 20 years ago, likely would have inflamed the readership of the paper and scandalized its editors. Reviewing the credibility of Broaddrick’s claim, Goldberg wrote that “five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened,” an important standard in reviewing the veracity of claims of past sex crimes.

    But Goldberg’s was not a single snowflake of truth; rather it was part of an avalanche of honesty in the elite press, following a seemingly innocuous tweet by the MSNBC host Chris Hayes. “As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is,” he wrote, “it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”


    Chris Hayes: ‘As gross and cynical and hypocrtical as the right's "what about Bill Clinton" stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.’ (3:11 PM - Nov 10, 2017)

    What happened next can only be compared to the moment when Glinda the Good Witch of the North came to Munchkinland and told the little people that it was finally safe. Come out, come out, wherever you are!


    The tweet galvanized not just the usual Clinton haters of Fox News but also a cadre of the most unexpected players: editors of the kind of prestige publications that have traditionally handled the accusations of Clinton’s accusers with nearly pathological disdain. But not this time. When Hayes’s tweet became a sensation, editors at the best shops gave marquee writers a radioactive assignment, which they gladly accepted. By midday Wednesday there was such a glut of “I Believe Juanita” pieces that Chelsea Clinton couldn’t have sold one.

    Peter Baker of The New York Times wrote a story about this watershed moment that included the testimony of the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias writing, “I think we got it wrong”; Jeff Greenfield of Politico observing that liberals could be having a “moral awakening”; and David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official, saying that even Monica Lewinsky—who never claimed she was abused in any way by Clinton—“deserves an apology from many of us she has never received.”

    Enough time has passed that outing Clinton for his alleged sex crimes now has the same retro “Oh grow up” feeling as revealing that John F. Kennedy had lovers—nobody’s perfect. But let’s not fool ourselves. “I believe Juanita” doesn’t just mean that you’re generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist.

    Broaddrick’s account—now accepted not just by a vast right-wing conspiracy, but also by a gathering number of liberal writers—is of an attack as brutal and unambiguous as the worst of the alleged assaults by Harvey Weinstein. Clinton, she says, manipulated his way into her hotel room, threw her down on the bed, yanked off her pantyhose, and raped her. She says he bit her lip hard enough to leave it bloodied. “You better put some ice on that,” she remembers him telling her as he walked out the door, headed off to his important work of feeling other people’s pain.

    When I have talked about these matters with progressives over the past week, I have encountered a fairly consistent response. It is no longer a frank denial of the weight and gravity of Broaddrick’s testimony. Rather it is a frustrated and dismissive statement of fact, one that can be reduced to the following formulation: I feel sorry for Juanita Broaddrick, but Bill Clinton was an excellent president. It’s a sentiment that encompasses the bitter and irreducible truth about being female in this world. There is sympathy for a rape victim—but she shouldn’t go around destroying a man’s reputation or family or career. Rape, unlike murder, is accepted as such an unremarkable fact of the human experience that a woman who spends years seeking redress for the crime comes to be viewed as some kind of lunatic, rejected lover, or tool of a vast conspiracy.

    When three of Clinton’s principal accusers accepted Donald Trump’s invitation to sit front-row at a presidential debate, they were largely regarded by the left as a gallery of ghouls and liars. But that was politics, and an election was at stake. Now—when all is lost—there’s been a change. The truth bats last.

    Liberals seem almost giddy with relief, admitting what they believe—which is how it always feels when you finally decide that you’re going to say what you really think and to hell with the consequences. The truth does set you free, but it usually comes at a price, which is why it will probably take another 20 years to open The New York Times and read an editorial called “Hillary Knew.”



    https://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/...es_his_cool_in

    Bill Clinton Loses His Cool in Democracy Now! Interview on Everything But Monica: Leonard Peltier, Racial Profiling, Iraqi Sanctions, Ralph Nader, the Death Penalty and Israel-Palestine (June 22, 2004)

    Former President Clinton’s memoirs have hit bookstores across the country. All three editions of the 1,000-page book — the abridged, the large print and the regular version — are in the top-ten bestseller list of online bookseller Amazon.com.

    The cable networks have already begun their orgy of Clinton-bashing with Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky their main thrust.

    A one-hour appearance on Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes kicked off the media extravaganza. The interview was promoted for days with a clip about Lewinsky, and the program was watched by an estimated 15.4 million viewers.

    In an interview airing tonight with Britain’s BBC television, Clinton reportedly loses his temper with host David Dimbleby when he is repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s outrage at the line of questioning is being billed as the first time that the former president has been seen to publicly lose his temper in an interview.

    But it did happen before: four years ago in an interview for Democracy Now! We rebroadcast that interview Amy Goodman conducted on Election Day 2000 with the then-sitting president. They discussed many topics you won’t likely hear raised this week: Leonard Peltier, racial profiling, the Iraqi sanctions, the death penalty, Ralph Nader and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At one point Clinton accused Amy of being “hostile and combative.” The next day, the President’s aides threatened to ban Amy from the White House. Amy and her brother David Goodman wrote about the interview in their new book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media that Love Them. [includes rush transcript]
    ________________________________________

    AMY GOODMAN: Former President Clinton’s memoirs have hit bookstores across the country. All three editions of the 1,000-page book — the abridged, the large print and the regular version — are in the top-ten of the online bookseller Amazon.com.

    The cable networks have already begun their orgy of Clinton-bashing with Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky their main thrust. A one-hour appearance on Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes kicked off the media extravaganza. In that interview, Clinton backed President Bush’s invasion of Iraq but said his timing to launch the war was wrong. The interview was promoed for days with an excerpt about Monica Lewinsky. The program was watched by more than 15 million viewers.

    And it went smoothly — unlike what happened with the BBC television interview that will air tonight. President Clinton reportedly loses his temper with host David Dimbleby when he’s repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s outrage at the line of questioning is being billed as the first time the former president has been seen publicly losing his temper in an interview.

    But it did happen before: four years ago in an interview for Democracy Now! Well, for a little background, let me read from my book, The Exception to the Rulers, which I wrote with my brother, journalist David Goodman. The chapter is called “Not on Bended Knee.”

    On Election Day 2000, I was in the Democracy Now! office at WBAI on Wall Street when I received a call minutes before going on the air at 9:00 a.m. The caller said, “Hello, I’m calling from White House Communications.” Things get very frantic moments before broadcasting, and we get a fair number of unusual calls. White Horse? That’s the famous tavern in Greenwich Village where poet Dylan Thomas was said to have drunk himself to death. Even the White Horse has a PR agent? I thought they had said “White Horse Communications.”

    Then the caller said the President would like to speak to me. I said, “The president of what?” We were on the air in less than a minute. “The President of the United States,” they said.

    “Oh, please,” I said.

    They said, “He’d like to call in to your radio program.”

    “Yeah, right,” I said. “Whatever.”

    I ran into the studio as the theme music for Democracy Now! was playing. Our producers were Brad Simpson, a history grad student, and Maria Carrion. Maria had produced Democracy Now! for two years before moving home to Spain, and had flown back just to help out for the election. That was supposed to mean three days, but this was the election of 2000. She ended up staying five weeks — from the night before the election to the day after the final “selection” of George W. Bush. I could hardly tell Maria and Brad, as they were frantically putting the finishing touches on the election show, that the President was calling in, especially because I didn’t believe it myself. But as the music swelled, I said, “By the way, that was the White House on the phone. They said the President might call in.”

    “Yeah, right,” Maria said. And I left it at that.

    Well, when Democracy Now! finished, we were about to head out for coffee when someone began shouting from master control: “President Clinton is on the phone!” Maria ran in, took the call, yelled for me to get into master control immediately. Gonzalo Aburto, the host of the Latino music show that follows Democracy Now! on Tuesdays, was at the control board.

    I ran into the studio and heard, over the blasting Latino beat, the disembodied voice of President Clinton saying, “Hello, hello, is anyone there? Can you hear me?” The faders on our microphones were all the way down, the music was all the way up. I practically dove over the master control board and pulled down the music, put up all of our mikes, and welcomed the President to WBAI.

    The Washington Post later wrote of the encounter, “For Clinton it was supposed to be two minutes of get-out-the vote happy talk with a progressive radio show and then: Gotta go.” Well, the story continued, “In this insider media age when oh-so-serious reporters measure status by access to the powerful, Goodman is the journalist as uninvited guest,” wrote Michael Powell. “You might think of the impolite question; she asks it.” And it went on from there.

    Well, let’s go directly to the interview. There was no question this was President Clinton’s voice, so we just launched in.

    AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, are you there?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I am. Can you hear me?

    AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we can.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: You’re calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that they are — at this point feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: There’s not a shred of evidence to support that. That’s what I would say. It’s true that both parties have wealthy supporters. But let me offer you — let me just give you the differences. Let’s look at economic policy. First of all, if you look at the last eight years, look where America was eight years ago, and look where it is today. We have the strongest economy in history. And for the first time in 30 years, the incomes of average people and lower-income working people have gone up 15 percent after inflation. The lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, the highest minority home ownership, the highest minority business ownership in history — that’s our record.

    If you look at our proposals, what do we propose to do? We propose a tax cut that helps average people, for child care, for long-term care, for paying for college tuition, for retirement savings. We propose to invest large amounts of money in education, healthcare, the environment, in our future. And we propose to keep paying down the debt, because that keeps interest rates lower.

    What do the Republicans propose? A tax cut that’s three times as big. Most of it goes to very wealthy people. The top one percent of the people get as much money as they would spend on healthcare, education and the environment combined. They propose to privatize Social Security. And if you add the two things together, we’ll be back in deficits, which means the economy will go downhill and interest rates will be higher for ordinary people.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: So, look, that’s just one example. You asked the question. There’s not —

    AMY GOODMAN: Right.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Look at campaign finance reform. The Democrats are for it; the Republican leadership kills it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me just —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Look at the environment. The Dem — we’ve got the cleanest environment in history, the best environmental record in history. The Republicans want to reverse our environmental record. So, give me — you can’t give one example of where both parties are dominated by large corporations and therefore there’s no difference. The American people’s lives are a lot better than they were eight years ago.

    The truth is there’s an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to grow the economy is to give more money to the wealthy, and the Democrats, who believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, since it’s rare to get you on the phone, let me ask you another question. And that is, what is your position on granting Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist, executive clemency?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I don’t — I don’t have a position I can announce yet. I think if — I believe there is a new application for him in there. And when I have time, after the election is over, I’m going to review all the remaining executive clemency applications and, you know, see what the merits dictate. I will try to do what I think the right thing to do is based on the evidence. And I’ve never had the time actually to sit down myself and review that case. I know it’s very important to a lot of people, maybe on both sides of the issue. And I think I owe it to them to give it an honest look-see. So, part of my responsibilities in the last 10 weeks of office after the election will be to review the requests for pardons and executive clemencies and give them a fair hearing. And I pledge to do that.

    AMY GOODMAN: And you will give an answer in his case?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Oh, yeah, I’ll decide one way or the other.

    AMY GOODMAN: And finally, do you support a moratorium on the death penalty, given the studies that show how racist it has been — how it has been applied in a racist manner?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I think in the case of — I certainly support what the Governor of Illinois did, because there was clear evidence in Illinois that a lot of mistakes had been made. In the case of the federal government, I have asked the Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive review and to let me — and to report back to us on the racial disparities and on any question of guilt, on adequate assistance of counsel, on all those things, to determine whether there should be a moratorium. And I haven’t gotten her findings yet. Now, so far, the only two cases which have come up have been deferred, while we do this study. And so, when that comes in and if it comes in while I’m still in office, then I’ll make a judgment. And if it doesn’t, I think that the next president, I would hope, would make the same decision, based on the merits, based on what the evidence shows.

    The disturbing thing to me is that there’s not only an apparent racial disparity on death row, but also — in the federal government, but also way over half the cases come from a relatively small number of the U.S. attorneys’ offices, which is — you know, it’s disturbing.

    But again, let me just say this. If you’re concerned about that, that’s a good reason to vote for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, and Hillary for the Senate, and for the people in New Jersey who can hear you, for Jon Corzine, because we know the Democrats care about these issues, and we know they’re not very important to the Republicans.

    AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Gore —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: And so, that’s another example of another reason you ought to vote for the Democrats.

    AMY GOODMAN: Gore supports the death penalty.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: He does, but —

    AMY GOODMAN: And Lieberman.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Yes, they do. But there’s a difference in supporting it and thinking that you would carry it out even if you thought the system was fundamentally unfair. His opponent —

    AMY GOODMAN: But the studies show that it is.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But the studies are not complete, because the studies have to — what the Attorney General is doing is not just looking at everybody that’s been convicted, but everybody that could have been charged that wasn’t. There’s a lot more stuff that needs to be done. And it may confirm the initial view of who’s on the death row. But I think what — you ought to look at that as compared with Texas, for example, where there was evidence that — lawyers falling asleep in their trials were not enough to deter Texas from continuing to carry out the death penalty, which I thought was unacceptable. And so, I think that if you’re interested in having somebody that at least has the capacity to look at the fairness of this, you only have one choice.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I guess many people were quite disturbed that when you first ran for president, you went back in the midst of your campaign to Arkansas and presided over the execution of a mentally impaired man.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Yeah, but let me — let’s go back to the facts here. He was not mentally impaired when he committed the crime. He became mentally impaired because he was wounded after he murdered somebody. And the law says that it’s your mental state at the time you committed the crime. That’s something no one else ever — no one ever says that when they talk about it. Had he been mentally impaired when he committed the crime, I would never have carried out the death penalty, because he was not in a position to know what he was doing. That is not what the facts were.

    GONZALO ABURTO: President —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Secondly, if I had not gone home, I would have been accused of putting a tough decision off on somebody else.

    GONZALO ABURTO: President Clinton, my name is Gonzalo Aburto. I’m a Latino living here in New York. I’m the host of La Nueva Alternativa here at BAI. I want to ask you why Latinas and Latinos in the United States should vote for Gore and Lieberman.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I think they should vote for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for several reasons. First of all, we are committed to fairness for legal immigrants, and we’re trying to pass a law right now to guarantee that. And our opponents in the Republican Party are opposed to that, and that’s — and the congressional leaders are opposed to it, which is another reason to vote for Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and for Hillary, for Jon Corzine in New Jersey. The Latinos should know that the Democrats favor fairness for immigrants.

    Secondly, we favor affirmative action.

    Thirdly, we favor hate crimes legislation and employment non-discrimination legislation and the appointments of judges to the Supreme Court that will protect civil rights and human rights.

    And fourthly, let me say again, we have had an economic policy that has dramatically improved the lives of Latinos. When I became president, the Latino unemployment rate was 11.8 percent. Today it is five percent, the lowest in the history of the country. So, if you’re looking for somebody that wants to make sure everybody is part of America’s present and future, Al Gore is your man.

    He also proposes to put more money into the schools in the poorest parts of our country to modernize the schools, to hire more teachers, to connect all the classrooms to the internet. He proposes healthcare reforms that would provide medicine for seniors on Medicare and more health insurance for children and for the — for the working parents of low-income people. The Latino working families have the highest level of uninsured people of any population group in the country. So, for all those reasons, Latinos should vote for Gore and Lieberman and Hillary.

    AMY GOODMAN: Yet, despite massive protests in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy continues to bomb, and you’ve — the island of Vieques. And you have authorized this. Why?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, now, wait a minute. Wait, wait, just a minute now. The United States Navy has an agreement with the government of Puerto Rico, the representative of all the people of Puerto Rico, to turn back — if — to turn back the western half of Vieques to Puerto Rico, to not have any live fire bombing — there’s no live fire bombing going on there — and to terminate all the training within a couple of years, during which time they have to find a new place to train.

    So this — this training that’s going on now is subsequent to an agreement.

    Now, the Republicans in Congress broke the agreement and, instead of giving the western part of the island to Puerto Rico, gave it to the Interior Department to manage. If I can’t find a way to give that island, the western part of the island, back to the people of Puerto Rico and to honor the agreement that the government of Puerto Rico itself made, with the support of the local leaders, including the mayor of Vieques, then the people of Puerto Rico, I think, have the right to say the federal government broke its word and the training has to stop right now.

    But I think the training should stop, because the people don’t want it there. But we need a place to train, and we’re in the process of finding another place. And we made an agreement with the Governor and the people of Puerto Rico, [the elected representatives, to turn over the western part of the island, to invest a lot of money in helping to build up the tourism capacity and protect the environmental structure of the Vieques, and to otherwise compensate the people of] Puerto Rico and the island of Vieques for the training in the past.

    So, I think it was a good agreement, and I think the agreement ought to be honored. And I was disappointed that the Congress didn’t fully honor it. But I think I can find a way to keep the commitment of the federal government anyway. And that’s what I’m trying to do.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President, what do you think about a possible amnesty for undocumented — trabajadores indocumentados?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I think that — that’s what I meant earlier. I’ve got a bill before Congress now, that would treat legal immigrants from Honduras, from — from Guatemala, from Haiti, from Salvador, in the same way that the Congress has already voted to treat immigrants from Cuba and Nicaragua. I think that it’s not right the way we have treated a lot of these immigrant populations differently. I know there aren’t many Liberians probably among your listeners. Most of them live up in the Rhode Island, Massachusetts area. But they also are being treated unfairly, and I’m trying to get them included in immigrant fairness.

    And again, I’m having a big fight with the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress. So the Democrats are for that, and the — and the Republicans aren’t. So, that’s another reason, if you care about that, that we need to have someone to — to stand up to them. And that means that we need Al Gore. And if — I think the Democrats have a good chance to win the House and maybe the Senate. But if we don’t win, it’s very important that Gore be the president, because somebody’s got to be there to stop the extremist Republicans in Congress. And therefore, we need every Democratic senator we can get. We need Corzine in New Jersey. We need Hillary in New York. And we need — most important, we’ve got to have Gore and Lieberman in the White House.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, U.N. figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That’s not true. That’s not true. And that’s not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War — you said this — how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer: $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer: $19 billion, that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He’s got more money now, $3 billion a year more, than he had nine years ago. If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it’s because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children.

    We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapons system and his military state. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shiites. He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo. And if they’re hungry or they’re not getting medicine, it’s his own fault.

    AMY GOODMAN: The past two U.N. heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the U.S. policy — U.S.-U.N. policy “genocidal.” What is your response to that?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: They’re wrong. They think that we should reward — Saddam Hussein says, “I’m going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do, so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then I’ll stop starving my kids.” And so, we’re supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. That’s just not right. I know that they — you know, the truth is, a lot of these people want to start doing business with Saddam Hussein again because they want his money. And, you know, they want his — the money he earns from oil.

    But the — it is an absolute fact that he has more money today than he did before the embargo. So if any child is without food or medicine, it’s because he has made a deliberate decision to let them die, to try to build up pressure to lift the embargo, so he can spend that money however he wants. He doesn’t want to spend that money on his people. He wants to spend that money to become the military dictator of the Middle East again.

    Now, if people want to let him do it, that’s one thing. But, you know, I have consistently supported changing and relaxing the embargo, since I’ve been president, to make absolutely sure that he had enough money and enough freedom in the use of the money to rebuild the country economically and to try to feed those children and get them medicine. There were a lot of problems with the embargo in the beginning. There were legitimate criticisms. But he now has more money, with the absolute freedom to spend it on food and medicine and development and medical care of all kinds, than he did before the embargo was put in. That’s a fact; no one can dispute that. So, nobody can figure out why there are problems among the children, except that he won’t spend the money on them. He spends the money on his own military, on his own crowd, and he avoids spending it on a lot of kids who need it, so he can blame us, so he can actually get total control over his money, so he can rebuild his apparatus.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: And I think — you know, remember, this is the only guy, the only world leader today, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And the American people, in my judgment, should give him all the money he needs to take care of his kids, but should do everything we can, and even if we’re alone, to try to stop him from being in a position of murdering his kids again and murdering other children in the Middle East. That’s what I believe.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton on Election Day 2000. We’ll continue with the interview, which got rather heated, in a moment.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: We continue with our half-hour interview with President Clinton on Election Day 2000, this segment begun with a question from WBAI producer Gonzalo Aburto.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President, are we going to see a substantial change in the policy through Cuba, regarding Cuba?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, let me say, we were on the way to that change. Back in 1996, we had a lot of changes in my first term in our policy toward Cuba, and we were working our way toward a reconciliation. And the Cubans were working their way toward more openness, more freedom for their farmers and their people. We were really making headway. And then they illegally shot down those two planes, and four people died on the planes. And the Congress passed the Cuba — the Helms-Burton bill, so-called. And I don’t have much flexibility to do much more.

    What I have done with Cuba is to use the maximum extent of my legal powers to promote people-to-people contacts with Cuba and the Cuban people. I do believe there that the Cuban people have suffered because of the embargo, and we should do more in the area of food, in the area of medicine, in the area of people-to-people contacts. And, you know, I believe that it’s just a question of time ’til the United States and Cuba are reconciled. And I think that the situation is tragic.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you just —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But it wouldn’t have happened if Castro hadn’t shot those planes down out of the air, in blatant violation of international law. It was just murder. There’s no other — there’s no way to put a fine point on it. I mean, and we were — sometimes I think he doesn’t want the embargo lifted, because it’s an excuse for the problems that he has with his own administration, because he knew where we were going, he knew we were moving to reconcile, and he knew good and well that it was a total violation of international law to murder people who were in unarmed airplanes.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you justify imposing the embargo against Cuba and lifting it against China, normalizing relations with China?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, first of all, China hasn’t killed any of our pilots lately. They haven’t murdered any Americans. As a matter of fact, the United States accidentally and tragically killed some Chinese citizens during our military campaign in Kosovo.

    And we have differences with China that we think can best be resolved. China is a nuclear power; we think they have missile capacity. We’ve worked very hard with them to reduce the threats of sales of missiles to renegade states, to make the world a safer place. And they’ve worked with us on peace on the Korean Peninsula, to help the North Korean situation.

    And we would — as I said, I believe if Castro hadn’t shot those planes down and the Congress hadn’t passed a law which prohibits me from doing anything with the embargo, that we might have made some real progress there. But it — sooner or later, this is going to happen, and the sooner, the better. The sooner we can be reconciled with the people of Cuba, the better. But Mr. Castro is going to have to make some changes, and, you know, you can’t keep just throwing people in jail for human rights violations and expect the United States to do nothing, with this huge Cuban population here. I hope that we can make some more progress.

    And believe me, it would have happened if he hadn’t shot those planes down. And sometimes I wonder if he shot them down just to make sure the embargo couldn’t be lifted, because as long as he can blame the United States, then he doesn’t have to answer to his own people for the failures of his economic policy. I wish it were different, and maybe it will be under the next administration.

    AMY GOODMAN: Amnesty International has described what the Israeli forces are now doing in the Occupied Territories as —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Listen, I can’t do a whole press conference here. It’s Election Day, and I’ve got a lot of people and places to call.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I guess these are the questions that are very important to our listeners, and these are the questions that —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I’ve answered them all.

    AMY GOODMAN: Right, and we appreciate that. And —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I have answered them all. Now, let me just tell you, on the Israeli-Palestinian thing, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and I were together in Egypt. We agreed on a three-pronged strategy to end the violence and restore the peace talks. And with regard to the Amnesty International findings, what we agreed to do was to set up a fact-finding commission to look into what happened, how the recent violence started, and what can be done to avoid it recurring. And the agreement was that that would happen as soon as the violence was stopped. And we’ve had some progress in the last two or three days. Everybody is working hard.

    And I think the less I say right now, the better, publicly, because I don’t want to complicate things. I’m working my heart out to stop the violence, get the commission appointed, and get the peace process started. In the Middle East, which is something I know more than a little bit about, the only answer to this, over the long run, is an agreement that covers all the issues that the Palestinians feel aggrieved by, guarantees the Israelis security and acceptance within the region, and is a just and lasting peace. That’s the only answer to this in the long run. And we’ve just got to work through it.

    I have some hope that in the next few days we’ll be able to do it. Mr. Arafat is coming to see me on Thursday. Mr. Barak is coming to see me on Sunday. And we’ll try to get it resolved. That’s all I can tell you now. And I think —

    AMY GOODMAN: Why doesn’t —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I think the United Nations will support — well, I know they will —- the implementation of the agreement we made at Sharm el-Sheikh –

    AMY GOODMAN: Why not —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: —- which would –

    AMY GOODMAN: Why not support a U.N. force in the Middle East for the illegal occupation of the territories? And at this point I think we’re around 150 people being killed in the Occupied Territories, overwhelmingly Palestinian.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: You can support it if you want to, but the Israelis won’t support it. And there was a war in which that happened. And if you want to make peace, then you have to do things that both sides can agree with. That’s what a peace agreement is. And I do not believe that, just as I don’t think Israel can forever impose their situation in the Middle East, and they don’t either, which is why we started the Oslo peace process seven years ago; neither do I think that, you know, everybody else saying the U.N. is going to impose their will on Israel on its own territory will work out either.

    We’ve got to have a peace agreement here. That’s the only way this is ever going to be resolved. And I don’t think that we should do anything or say anything right now, except something that will stop people from getting killed, and get the peace process started again.

    AMY GOODMAN: Many people say that Ralph Nader is at the high percentage point he is in the polls because you’ve been responsible for taking the Democratic Party to the right. What do you say to listeners who are listening around the area right now —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I’m glad you ask that.

    AMY GOODMAN: — to allay their concerns?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I’m glad you ask that. That’s the last question I’ve got time for. I’ll be happy to answer that.

    What is the measure of taking the Democratic Party to the right? That we cut the welfare rolls in half? That poverty is at a 20-year low? That child poverty has been cut by a third in our administration? That the incomes of average Americans have gone up 15 percent after inflation? That poverty among seniors has gone below 10 percent for the first time in American history? That we have the lowest African American, the lowest Latino unemployment rate in the history of the country? That we have a 500 percent increase in the number of minority kids taking advanced placement tests? That the schools in this country, that the test scores among —- since we’ve required all the schools to have basic standards, test scores among African Americans and other minorities have gone up steadily? Now, what –

    AMY GOODMAN: Can I say what some people —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me — now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question you’ve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?

    AMY GOODMAN: They’ve been critical questions.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and I’m going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I — and you have never been able to combat the facts I have given you. Now, you listen to this.

    The other thing Ralph Nader says is that, you know, he’s pure as Caesar’s wife on the environment. Under this administration, 43 million more Americans are breathing cleaner air. We have safer drinking water, safer food, cleaner water. We have more land set aside than any administration in history since Theodore Roosevelt. We have cleaned up three times as many toxic waste sites as the previous administrations did in 12 years. And we passed a chemical right-to-know law that’s a very tough law. It’s the best environmental record in history.

    Al Gore’s opponent — and one of the two of them are going to be president — Al Gore’s opponent has promised to weaken the clean air standards and repeal a lot of the land protections. Now, those are the facts. People can say whatever they want to. Those are the facts.

    AMY GOODMAN: What people say is that you pushed through NAFTA, that we have the highest population of prisoners in the industrialized world, at over two million, that more people are on death row in this country than anywhere else, and that people —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, alright. Now, OK —

    AMY GOODMAN: —- have the death penalty imposed on them –

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That’s fine. But two-thirds of the American people support that. I think there are too many people in prison, too. I have called for a total evaluation of the people in the federal prison system, a review of the federal sentencing guidelines. I did my best to persuade Congress to get rid of the discrepancy between crack — crack and powdered cocaine in the sentencing guidelines. I agree with that. Nobody ever said America was perfect.

    I disagree, I think NAFTA has been good for America. I think it’s been good. It has helped to reduce illegal immigration. It’s helped to provide a decent standard of life in Mexico. I think it has been good. I think the agreement we made to open our markets to Africa and the poor countries in the Caribbean were good for America.

    People complain about our trade agreements. Trade is at — accounting for 30 percent of our economic growth, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. How can anybody make a serious case that trade’s been bad for America? We have a 15 percent increase in average income of ordinary Americans, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, and the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded among African Americans and Hispanics. Now, I don’t think you can make a sane case that if we closed up our markets, that either Africa or Latin America or America would be better off.

    AMY GOODMAN: What about —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: The real problem you’ve got are the results. This country is in good shape. Now, I’ve talked to you a long time. It’s Election Day. There are a lot of other people —

    AMY GOODMAN: We appreciate it.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: — in America, and I’ve got to go.

    AMY GOODMAN: One last question, what about granting an executive order ending racial profiling in this country?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I expect that we will end racial profiling. Here’s the deal. The Attorney General is supposed to give me a report on that. I’m opposed to it. Al Gore is opposed to it. Here’s the deal. Look, I had some–I have two people who work for me in the White House, who were wrongly stopped, handcuffed and hassled the other day. I have spoken out against racial profiling, and Hillary has made it a big issue in New York.

    And so, here’s the issue, and here’s what we’re working on. We’re trying to find a way to issue orders and rules and regulations that end racial profiling, that clearly do not prevent law enforcement officials from investigating particular crimes. And there is a way to do it, and we’re working on it, and the Attorney General is working on it. But, you know, Janet Reno was a prosecutor in Miami, in Dade County, for 12 years. She dealt with a large African American population, a large Haitian population, a large Latino population. She had a great reputation with all of them. And she’s trying to fashion a resolution of this that ends racial profiling, that clearly allows law enforcement to continue. And that’s where this is now. This is going to be done. And we have to do it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Thank you for spending the time, President Clinton.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Thank you.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton on Election Day 2000. I interviewed him with WBAI producer Gonzalo Aburto. Well, a day after that program, I got a call from the White House press office. A staffer let me know how furious they were with me for breaking the ground rules for the interview. “Ground rules?” I asked. “What ground rules? He called up to be interviewed. I interviewed him.”

    “He called to discuss getting out the vote,” they said, “and you strayed from the topic. You also kept him on much longer than the two to three minutes that we had agreed to,” she said.

    “President Clinton is the most powerful person in the world,” I said. “He can hang up if he wants to.”

    Well, the Clinton administration threatened to ban me from the White House and suggested to a Newsday reporter that they might punish me for my attitude by denying me access — not that I had any to lose. The White House spokesperson said, “Any good reporter understands if you violate the ground rules in an interview, that it’s going to be taken into account the next time you are seeking an interview.”

    Well, first of all, we hadn’t agreed to any ground rules. Clinton called us. Second, we wouldn’t have agreed to any. The only ground rule for good reporting I know is that you don’t trade your principles for access. We call it the “access of evil.”

    Oh, and this update: Leonard Peltier remains in jail. President Clinton didn’t pardon him. Instead, Clinton granted a pardon to fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who had been living in Switzerland since a 1983 indictment on charges of wire fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and trading with Iran in violation of a U.S. embargo. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, was a major donor to the campaigns of both the president and his wife, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Peltier said in response, quote, “We can see who is granted clemency and why. The big donors to the president’s campaign were able to buy justice, something we just couldn’t afford. Meanwhile, many political prisoners continue to languish unjustly, proof that this nation’s talk about reconciliation is nothing but empty rhetoric,” Peltier said. He remains in prison at Leavenworth.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...red-nostalgia/

    “11 times Bill Clinton was accused of assault or rape: remember this when Dems say accusers should be believed”
    (JULY 27, 2016) [BY NANCY FRENCH]

    “In the spring of 1971, I met a girl.” That’s how Bill Clinton began his speech at the Democratic National Convention. Many women across America thought, “Really? Which one?”

    Now that women are coming out of the woodwork accusing Republican nominee Donald Trump of sexual abuse, the liberals are saying we should believe them, to listen to their stories.

    I agree. But we should also listen to THESE women’s stories:

    1. Three college students

    In 1969, Bill Clinton was a 23-year-old Rhodes scholar at Oxford University when he was accused of sexual assault by a fellow student, an English woman named Eileen Wellstone, 19, after the two met at a local pub. Bill acknowledged that he had sex with this woman, but insists it was a consensual encounter.

    An unidentified State Department employ filed a report of the incident at the time with his superiors. Now retired he said, “There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma…But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes scholar charged with rape.”

    Charges were never brought against Clinton. He left Oxford one year later without earning his degree.

    In 1972, a 22-year-old Yale student contacted campus police and accused Bill of sexual assault. He was dating Hillary Rodham at the time. Retired campus police have since confirmed the report. Again, no charges were filed.

    By 1974, Clinton was a law professor at the University of Arkansas and still up to no good. One of his students alleged that this soon-to-be governor groped her and forced his hand inside her shirt while alone in his office. When confronted by the girl’s faculty advisor, Clinton blamed her for coming on to him. The girl left UofA shortly after the incident and has declined to go on record ever since.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/2/

    2. Juanita Broaddrick

    Bill’s next victim became a household name in 1999 when “Jane Doe #5” identified herself in a Dateline interview. Broaddrick’s tearful recounting of her rape by the then-Arkansas attorney general deepened an already national scandal.

    At 35 years old, Broaddrick had volunteered for Bill’s 1978 gubernatorial campaign. A meeting was set to meet in the lobby of Broaddrick’s hotel until Bill suggested a venue change to avoid the press: her hotel room.

    After a few minutes of shop talk, Bill kissed her without consent. She resisted, reminding that she was married. But he persisted, bit her lip and pushed her down on the bed. Her repeated requests to stop were rejected. His final words to her as he put on his sunglasses and grabbed for the door, “You better get some ice on that,” referring to her swollen lip.

    Weeks later, Broaddrick says she was approached by Hillary Clinton at a rally and intimidated by Hillary Clinton to keep quiet. She said Hillary thanked her for “everything [she] does for Bill,” and repeated it with a cold, hard stare and an extra tight grip on her hand: “Everything you do for Bill.”


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/3/

    3. Carolyn Moffet

    Carolyn Moffet was a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979 when she was invited to Governor Clinton’s hotel room after a political fundraiser.

    “I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt,” she said. “He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend, and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room”.

    During the years between 1978-1980, Arkansas state troopers assigned to protect the governor received at least seven complaints from women who claim Bill forced himself on them sexually. The running joke at the time was, “Who’s next?” A trooper escort to Clinton’s hotel room were a regular occurrence, often more than once per night.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/6/

    6. Dolly Kyle

    Dolly Kyle and William Jefferson Clinton were classmates in high school. But in the mid-1970s, their relationship turned sexual and lasted until January of 1992. After Clinton won the presidency, the attorney Kyle began writing a book about the affair, but claims President Clinton threatened to destroy her in the media for it. She explained the Bill/Hillary dynamic in her book “Hillary, The Other Woman,” that Hillary paid the bills for him when Bill was at Yale.

    “Hillary was upholding her part of the deal to get Billy elected president, after which it would be her turn to be the first woman in the Oval Office. Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people. It was always a codependent, co-conspiratorial grab for money and power and more money and more power.”


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/8/

    8. Kathleen Willey

    In 1998, during the height of the Clinton-White House sex scandal, Kathleen Willey accused President Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1993 during an Oval Office meeting. Willey, a White House volunteer at the time, said that the president groped her breast and put her hand on his genitals.

    More recently, Willey has labeled Hillary an “enabler” of Bill’s infidelities.

    “She enabled his behavior,” she said. “It’s as simple as that. She looks the other way.”

    “She might throw a tantrum,” Willey added, “but she enabled it to happen again and again and again and again. And then she chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again and again and again. And that’s how it works.”



    - From The Paradigm: The Ancient Blueprint That Holds the Mystery of Our Times; pages 79-81 (Ch. 11—The Prophecy):

    What was it that happened to America after the end of the Clinton presidency? The nation would be shaken by two epic events. One of these was the global financial implosion of 2008. Could this have been one of the repercussions and consequences of what was actually sown in the days of the Clintons and then fell in the days of a subsequent president?

    According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Clinton supported and signed into law more legislation deregulating the financial realm than any other president. He pushed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The act overturned key restraints of the Glass-Steagall law, which had barred investment banks from engaging in commercial banking activities and which had been in place since the Great Depression. [Julia Maues, “Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall),” Federal Reserve History, https://www.federalreservehistory.or...s_steagall_act ]

    Further, through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, he deregulated derivatives. This act caused the very risky derivatives market to become what one writer described as a “laissez-faire Wild West.” Further, he signed into law the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. This would lead to a wave of banking mergers and would eviscerate state regulation of the banking industry. [Bill Medley, “Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994,” Federal Reserve History, https://www.federalreservehistory.or...al_act_of_1994 ]

    Beyond that Clinton would change the laws concerning government-sponsored enterprises, loosening standards and controls, and would direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to massively invest in sub-prime mortgages. [Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending,” New York Times, September 30, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bu...e-lending.html ]

    Undoubtedly Clinton thought he was doing right in all these things and did not fathom the consequences his decisions would have. Nevertheless, the effect of any one of these things on the coming global financial implosion was major. But their combined effect was devastating. Thus the Columbia Journalism Review would conclude:

    “The bottom line is: Bill Clinton was responsible for more damaging financial deregulation—and thus, for the [2008] financial crisis—than any other president.” [Ryan Chittum, “Bill Clinton on Deregulation: ‘The Republicans Made Me Do It!’” Columbia Journalism Review, October 1, 2013, https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/b...ublicans_m.php ]

    Thus the overall dynamic of delayed consequences and deferred repercussions that marked the reign of Ahab with regard to Israel’s history can likewise be seen in the presidency of Bill Clinton and the years that followed. The global financial collapse that struck America and the world in 2008 was a consequence deferred from the days of the Clinton administration.

    But there was another epic global event and crisis that took place right after the end of the Clinton years. It was 9/11. Could the same dynamic of Ahab’s paradigm apply as well to the worst terror attack in American history? Could what happened in New York City and Washington, DC, have been another deferred consequence of the Clinton years?

    We have already witnessed the answer. It was during the Clinton years that Osama Bin Laden surfaced as a danger to America and the world. Clinton passed on the chance to kill Bin Laden just as Ahab had passed on the chance to kill Israel’s nemesis invader Ben-Hadad. And as we have seen, Clinton would even admit that much just ten hours before the planes struck their targets.

    At the same time that the king is reproved for his sins, he will be given word concerning the coming calamity.

    It was in Naboth’s vineyard that King Ahab was given a word from Elijah both reproving him for his sin and prophesying of future calamity. In December 1998 President Clinton was reproved before the US Congress, impeached on the charges of perjury and the obstruction of justice concerning the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Could he also have been given a word that same month on a future calamity?

    It was that same month, December 1998, that Clinton was given a secret memo from the CIA. It was entitled “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.”* It was the most definitive warning yet given of the calamity that would come to American shores. As with Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard, the king had received both a rebuke for his sins and the foretelling of the future calamity.

    * “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks,” Central Intelligence Agency Memo, December 4, 1998, Declassified and Approved for Release July 12, 2004, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001110635.pdf ]
    Last edited by HERO; 08-20-2018 at 12:04 PM.

  30. #30
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bill Clinton: IEE or SEE

    https://youtu.be/HYKubBpdRls?t=685

    President Bill Clinton: “. . . . not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, [we] are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our tax payers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workforce as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”





    https://youtu.be/tY3ZVmkAKyM?t=104

    “Bill Clinton was no friend to the working man. In fact, he was the starting of the demise of this country. Ronald Reagan scared the shit out of the Democrats so much that they decided to become like them. And so what Bill Clinton did was he got in bed with Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, health insurance, and the Koch brothers. He [Clinton] started a thing called the Democratic Leadership Council with Al Gore. They had executives from the Koch brothers on the Democratic Leadership Council. They completely turned their back on the working man. . . . They deregulated Wall Street, which crashed the economy within ten years. That’s what Democrats did. Democrats did shit that Ronald Reagan could only dream about in his wet dreams. They [the Republicans] couldn’t pass NAFTA. George Bush, Sr. couldn’t pass NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to do it. Bill Clinton gave the cover to the other corporate Democrats to go along with it. That was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.” — Jimmy Dore







    “Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...crimes/545729/



    Bill Clinton: A Reckoning

    Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right? (CAITLIN FLANAGAN - NOV 13, 2017)

    The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved: History instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.

    Most of them don’t have police reports or witnesses or physical evidence. Many of them are recounting events that transpired years—sometimes decades—ago. In some cases, their accusations are validated by a vague, carefully couched quasi-admission of guilt; in others they are met with outright denial. It doesn’t matter. We believe them. Moreover, we have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.

    Believing women about assault—even if they lack the means to prove their accounts—as well as understanding that female employees don’t constitute part of a male boss’s benefits package, were the galvanizing consequences of Anita Hill’s historic allegations against Clarence Thomas, in 1991. When she came forward during Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing and reported that he had sexually humiliated and pressured her throughout his tenure as her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was an event of convulsive national anxiety. Here was a black man, a Republican, about to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and here was a black woman, presumably a liberal, trying to block him with reports of repeated, squalid, and vividly recounted episodes of sexual harassment. She had little evidence to support her accusations. Many believed that since she’d been a lawyer at the EEOC, she had been uniquely qualified to have handled such harassment.

    But then something that no one could have predicted happened. It was a pre-Twitter, pre-internet, highly analog version of #MeToo. To the surprise of millions of men, the nation turned out to be full of women—of all political stripes and socioeconomic backgrounds—who’d had to put up with Hell at work. Mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends, wives—millions of women shared the experience of having to wait tables, draw blood, argue cases, make sales, all while fending off the groping, the joking, the sexual pressuring, and the threatening of male bosses. They were liberal and conservative; white collar and pink collar; black and white and Hispanic and Asian. Their common experience was not political, economic, or racial. Their common experience was female.

    For that reason, the response to those dramatic hearings constituted one of the great truly feminist events of the modern era. Even though Thomas successfully, and perhaps rightly, survived Hill’s accusations, something in the country had changed about women and work and the range of things men could do to them there.

    But then Bubba came along and blew up the tracks.

    How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the 2016 Democratic convention. Some of his appetites, at least, had waned; his wandering, “Norwegian Wood” speech about his wife struck the nostalgic notes of a husband’s 50th-anniversary toast, and the crowd—for the most part—indulged it in that spirit. Clearly, he was no longer thinking about tomorrow. With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.

    When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. Hillary’s grandmotherhood was evoked to suggest the next phase in her lifelong work on behalf of women and children—in this case forging a bond with the millions of American grandmothers who are doing the hard work of raising the next generation, while their own adult children muddle through life. But Bill’s being a grandfather was intended to send a different message: Don’t worry about him anymore; he’s old now. He won’t get into those messes again.

    Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

    It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

    The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

    The New York Times published Gloria Steinem’s essay defending Clinton in March 1998 . . .

    Called “Feminists and the Clinton Question,” it was written in March of 1998, when Paula Jones’s harassment claim was working its way through court. It was printed seven days after Kathleen Willey’s blockbuster 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. If all the various allegations were true, wrote Steinem, Bill Clinton was “a candidate for sex addiction therapy.” To her mind, the most “credible” accusations were those of Willey, who she noted was “old enough to be Monica Lewinsky’s mother.” And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

    Steinem said the same was true of Paula Jones. These were not crimes; they were “passes.” Steinem revealed herself as a combination John and Bobby Kennedy of the feminist movement: the fair-haired girl and the bare-knuckle fixer. The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms. But the mood of the country has changed. We are in a time when old monuments are coming down and men are losing their careers over things they did to women a long time ago.

    When more than a dozen women stepped forward and accused Leon Wieseltier of a serial and decades-long pattern of workplace sexual harassment, he said, “I will not waste this reckoning.” It was textbook Wieseltier: the insincere promise and the perfectly chosen word. The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C. K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.





    “The Phallic Presidency:
    The Clinton Scandals and the Yugoslav War as Purity Crusades” by Lloyd deMause
    [The Journal of Psychohistory 25 (4) Spring 1998]


    Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton--adulterers, fathers of illegitimate children, prostitute chasers, sex addicts. [1] Why do Americans so often choose as leaders men who betray and humiliate their wives with their compulsive sex affairs rather than mature men who are capable of loving their wives and not betraying them?


    It is no coincidence that of the thirteen womanizer presidents listed above, all but two also commanded major military ventures, while the twenty-eight other presidents who were not unfaithful were more peaceful. It is useful to ask the obvious question: might nations, when they are ready to go to war, unconsciously choose their leaders as some primitive tribes do--for their ability to conquer both women and enemies?


    The consensus about Clinton initially was that, because he was a "draft dodger" during Vietnam, he wouldn't take America to war. Yet even before Yugoslavia this was quite untrue. Clinton, according to Ramsey Clark's book, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq [2], managed through his embargo of Iraq to kill one million Iraqi children--nearly as many as the number of Jewish children that were killed in the Holocaust! Clinton's delegated role in America seems to be to provide sacrificial victims in a way that doesn't stir up our guilt feelings: in Iraq by his "invisible" killing of children, in Yugoslavia by focusing on the expulsions of Kosovars that his bombing triggered and even in the case of his own scandals, where he provided America for a whole year with himself as a suitable victim to punish for our sins.

    That Clinton unconsciously volunteered to be a sacrificial victim is clear. The weeks prior to his starting his affair with Monica Lewinsky were filled with media reports and late-night staff meetings in the White House about how the Chief Sacrificial Priest Kenneth Starr was hot on Clinton's trail for sexual misdemeanors for which he could be convicted. Staffers warned Clinton daily not to risk another "bimbo eruption" lest he be caught this time. Yet Clinton, sensing the group-fantasy of sacrifice was asking him to volunteer as the victim, started the affair nonetheless, looking out the White House windows while he was being sexually serviced by her to see if Starr's snoopers were looking in.


    According to his biographer, Clinton's family role was also as a sacrificial hero, who was "caretaker and protector of the family" and of his mother, Virginia. [3] His alcoholic stepfather was so violent toward his mother that Clinton recalls him firing a gun at his mother when he was five, and little Billy "twice had to stop real violence when Roger threatened to kill Virginia." [4] Clinton's "Family Hero" role was of course what has made him such a superb politician, being able to sense the unconscious emotional needs of others and sacrifice his own values for the adulation he gained. There was little love in his family. His stepfather physically abused him during his drunken rages, and his grandmother, who was his primary caretaker in his early years while his mother was elsewhere, had a "fierce temper" and undoubtedly used "a whip" on him as she had done on his mother when she was a child.

    Besides this physical abuse, Clinton was also a rejected child, whose mother left him as an infant for two years with her mother while she moved to another city to learn nursing and then routinely left him while she gambled as he grew up. "I was raised in that sort of culture where you put on a happy face, and you didn't reveal your pain and agony," he says. [6] Psychotherapist Jerome Levin attributes Clinton's sexual addiction with hundreds of women directly to his lonely childhood:

    "Virginia Kelley [Clinton's mother] looks extraordinarily like Lewinsky. Kelley's hairstyle, heavy makeup, and the overall impression are strikingly similar to Lewinsky's. Bill Clinton, the man who had lost his mother, had found a replacement for her....His legacy as an adult child of an alcoholic compelled him to fill the emptiness of his childhood and to repeat the addictive pattern of both his biological and his adoptive parents..." [7]


    That Clinton repeated his longings for his absent mother with Monica Lewinsky can be seen when he said to Monica after she was transferred out of the White House, "Why do they have to take you away from me?", the same question he had for his mother when she left him as a young boy. Even Juanita Broaddrick — who accused Clinton of biting, assaulting and viciously raping her twice — looked very much like Clinton's mother, and was, in addition, a nurse like Clinton's mother.


    Of course, in addition to restaging the betrayal he felt by his mother, Clinton's continuous humiliations of his wife over the years can be seen as expressing his unconscious rage toward his mother for her early abandonment of him--with the difference that in his affairs he would reverse roles and he would be the betrayer and his wife would be the betrayed.


    Indeed, the Clinton scandal wasn't "all about sex," it was "all about loss." Clinical studies of sex addicts find they aren't "expressing their drives" so much as combating desperate inner feelings of maternal abandonment, impotence and self-fragmentation through their repeated conquests of women. [8] Feelings of impotence, not excess potency, is the source of all sex addictions. And wars.


    Purity Crusades--like the impeachment of Clinton and the Yugoslav War, which The New York Times described as a necessary "Cleansing of Serbia" [9] -- are periodically encountered in history, usually after periods of peace and prosperity. [10] They are usually conducted against "too much sexual freedom," with various designated sacrificial scapegoats. The most famous took place prior to WWI, with a hysterical Vice Commission closing down brothels and regulating dance halls. Before the Civil War, reacting to the feminism and new sexual freedom of the 1850s, purity reformers suddenly decided to "protect the sexual purity of America" by starting a civil war to clean up the "one vast brothel" in the South. Before the Vietnam War, following the first legal publishing of Henry Miller's books, Citizens for Decent Literature conducted nationwide letter-writing campaigns and harassed drugstore chains to stop the distribution of "obscene" literature. Time even ran a cover story in January 1964 on "Sex in the U.S.," full of shocked prose on how America had become "one big Orgone box of Freudian" pornography and promiscuity. America's Purity Crusade during Clinton's second term wasn't just about Presidential sex. From New York to California, cities were attempting to close down X-rated video stores, politicians were "outed" as adulterers as "the sex police runs around Washington checking everyone out," and television programs featured specials declaring "The whole nation needs to repent!" [11]


    That impeachment of Clinton functioned for a time as what columnists called "a renewal process" and a "cleansing of America" [12] seems odd until it is considered as an age-old device for purification of a nation for its hubris, its prosperity, its sinfulness. In ancient Mesoamerica, when the state became convinced its prosperity had made it too sinful, the Chief Priest would tear out the heart of its best football player on a sacrificial stage and present it to the bloodthirsty goddess, who might otherwise punish all the people by not raising the sun the next day. [13] The "Sacrificial Hero" was turned into a god himself since he, like Clinton, had willingly volunteered to be sacrificed. Thus Clinton's polls, which had been sub-par until his affair was revealed, soared to over 70 percent approval "for the job he was doing for his country"--in other words, for being a sacrificial scapegoat, a poison container for our guilt — an approval level never before reached by a peacetime president.

    That nations sometimes choose their leaders because of their personal emotional dysfunctions seems an odd notion. Of course, other nations often choose dysfunctional leaders--like Adolf ****** or Saddam Hussein--who have serious emotional problems, starting wars that end by costing the lives of millions. But we usually think: "not us." Yet I wonder. Many historians, for instance, now argue that America chose John F. Kennedy for his phallic cold war personality, so it should not have surprised us when he ordered the Cuban invasion and risked incinerating millions of Americans with Russian nuclear missiles during his Cuban embargo, saying, "If Khrushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it's all over." [14] In fact, it turns out that it was Kennedy's taunting of the Russians with a 1962 "practice invasion" exercise near Cuba that actually pushed Khrushchev into putting his missiles into Cuba in the first place. [15] With Kennedy, there was an intimate emotional link between his sexual addiction--requiring almost daily conquests of mistresses and prostitutes--and his equally compulsive need for military conquests. The same is true of Clinton. He has many of the characteristics of what Robert Tucker calls the "warfare personality"--self-dramatization, extreme narcissism, repeated feelings of conspiracies against him by enemies and an ability to call for a great Crusade that will defeat Evil abroad and cleanse the world of its sinfulness. [16] I would only add to these: a deep well of loneliness, frequent revenge fantasies and an ability to dissociate.


    That Clinton dissociated and distorted reality when he began the bombing of Yugoslavia is little reflected in the media, since Americans overwhelmingly have dissociated along with him on the key facts of the outbreak of the war. Virtually everyone tacitly agrees by now that the NATO bombing began because Kosovars were being killed, raped, and forced out of their homes. But that wasn't what in fact happened. Even the head of the CIA told congressional leaders the bombing would cause the Serbs to attack, for "military action could include the chance of ethnic cleansing...[since] if we stuck a stick in this nest, we would stir it up more." [17] Richard Holbrooke agreed, warning that bombing would undoubtedly trigger ethnic cleansing. The following report from the Princeton University student newspaper was the only one that gave the true figures about the actual lack of violence before the bombing began:


    “Key members of the U.S. Senate sat slack-jawed through a confidential briefing last Thursday from the Clinton administration foreign-policy team...After the foreign-policy wise men asserted that the United States has a moral imperative to stop the murderous Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, one senator asked: How many Albanians have Milosevic's troops massacred this year? The president's emissaries turned ashen. They glanced at each other. They rifled through their papers. One hazarded a guess: 'Two thousand?' No, the senator replied, that was the number for all of last year. He wanted figures for the last month--or even the year to date, since the president had painted such a grisly picture of genocide in his March 24 address to the nation....Nobody knew. As it turns out, Kosovo has been about as bloody this year as, say, Atlanta. You can measure the deaths [prior to the bombing] not in the hundreds, but dozens.”


    That the Serbs then used the NATO bombing as an excuse for the expulsion of a million Kosovars is not the same as proving it would have happened without the bombing. Any local sheriff knows that when a crazy bank robber has a bank full of hostages, one doesn't start bombing him. The bombing obviously triggered the expulsions, not the other way around. And a ground war is likely to trigger even more needless horrors. But the time is ripe in America after the recent years of peace and prosperity for a new war, a new Purity Crusade, a new sacrifice to cleanse us of our sins. Milosevic is an ideal ******-substitute, the Serbs, products of generally brutal childrearing, are ideal enemies, and NATO, as Madeleine Albright once told Colin Powell, is an ideal instrument of war, saying that, after all, "What is the use of this marvelous military force if we can never use it?" [18] We have entered a new war trance; the ritual sacrifice may now begin.



    1. Wesley O. Hagood, Presidential Sex: From the Founding Fathers to Bill Clinton. New York: Citadel Press, 1996.


    2. Ramsey Clark, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq. New York: World View Forum, 1996.


    3. David Maraniss, The Clinton Enigma. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998, p. 49.


    4. Nancy Collins, “A Legacy of Strength and Love.” Good Housekeeping, November 1995, p. 115.


    5. David Maraniss, First in His Class: The Biography of Bill Clinton. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 22.


    6. Newsweek, March 30, 1992, p. 37.


    7. Jerome D. Levin, The Clinton Syndrome: The President and the Self-Destructive Nature of Sexual Addiction. Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1998, p. 19


    8. Patrick J. Carnes, Don’t Call It Love. New York: Bantam Books, 1992.


    9. The New York Times, May 9, 1999, p. D1.


    10. Lloyd deMause, “American Purity Crusades.” The Journal of Psychohistory 14 (1987): 346-347.


    11. MSNBC-TV, August 19, 1998; WABC-TV, September 18, 1998.


    12. MSNBC-TV, December 19, 1998, The New York Times, December 11, 1998, p. A35.


    13. Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, Eds., The Mesoamerican Ballgame. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991


    14. Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993; Theodore C. Sorensen, The Kennedy Legacy. New York: Macmillan, 1969; James N. Giglio, The Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1991.


    15. Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, “One Hell of a Gamble”: Chrushchev, Castro & Kennedy, 1958-1964. New York: Norton, 1997, pp. 166-170.


    16. Robert C. Tucker, “The Dictator and Totalitarianism.” World Politics 17 (1965): 555-583.


    17. Stephen R. Shalom, “A Just War?” Z Magazine September 1999, p. 28.


    18. Z Magazine, May 1999, p. 32.




    “The Clinton Scandal and Attacking Iraq” by Lloyd deMause

    http://www.geocities.ws/kidhistory/scandal.htm

    Washington, Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Bush, Clinton--compulsive womanizers, mistress collectors, fathers of illegitimate children, prostitute regulars, sex addicts. Why do Americans so often choose as our leaders such macho personalities, constantly humiliating their wives with their sexual affairs, rather than choosing people who can really love their spouses and not betray them?

    It is no coincidence that of the 12 presidents listed above who were womanizers all but 2 also commanded major military ventures--assuming Clinton will eventually bomb Iraq as he is threatening--while the 29 other American presidents were far more peaceful. Might modern nations sometimes unconsciously choose their leaders like New Guinea tribes choose their Big Men--for their ability to conquer both women and enemies?

    Americans are currently quite enthusiastic about Clinton's threats to bomb Iraq. According to Ramsey Clark's book, The Children Are Dying: The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq, Clinton's embargo already has killed one million Iraqi children--as many children as were killed in the Holocaust--even though it hasn't deterred Saddam from his military preparations. Nor will massive bombing of Iraq now deter Saddam from anything; it will just contribute further to our genocide of children.

    The macho conquest personalities of our leaders do not really surprise us, of course, since we are so often warned of them before electing them. That Bill Clinton—whose mother left him at birth for two years and who had a violent, alcoholic father—might have been a sex addict was suspected while he was still a candidate. Since he was the Democratic front-runner after admitting infidility on 60 Minutes, perhaps his infidelities only made him more qualified to be president in our minds. The media had already widely reproduced his sexually explicit telephone conversations with Gennifer Flowers, and since the voice on her tapes was unmistakably his, we all knew it was him telling her to "hang tough..if everybody's on record denying it, you've got no problem." So when Monica Lewinsky reportedly now says she was told "there were only two people in the room and if both of you say nothing happened, nothing happened," we shouldn't be surprised that Clinton might suggest lying to cover up his affairs.

    As a professional psychohistorian, I began my file on "Clinton's Sexual Addiction" during the Flowers revelations, and as the file grew thick with evidence I wasn't surprised when he was quoted in the Lewinsky tapes as saying he had affairs with "hundreds" of women. Even though Lewinsky may exaggerate, she isn't clinically psychotic nor obviously delusional, so the tapes probably don't just contain hallucinations. I have been particularly struck while collecting my evidence on his sex addiction by how Clinton's continuous humiliation of his wife seemed to express his unconscious anger toward his mother and restage the betrayal he must have felt by her early abandonment of him--except that through his affairs he became the betrayer and his wife was the betrayed. Clinical studies of sex addicts find they aren't just "expressing their drives" so much as combating inner feelings of maternal abandonment, impotence and self-fragmentation through their repeated conquests of women. That so many American men are now expressing in their jokes a thinly-veiled admiration of Clinton's conquests only shows how dysfunctional many men still are. If he eventually falls from office, this equally could be interpreted as his being a sacrificial scapegoat for our sinful wishes.

    That nations choose their leaders because of their personal emotional dysfunctions seems an odd notion. Of course, other nations often choose leaders--like ****** or Saddam--who have serious emotional problems, starting suicidal wars that end by costing the nation the lives of millions. But not us. Yet a good case could be made that America chose JFK because of his hawkish macho personality, beginning with his claiming a wholly illusory "missile gap" with the Russians. It should not then have surprised us then when he then led the Cuban invasion and even risked incinerating millions of Americans by Russian missiles through his Cuban embargo saying, "If Krushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it's all over." With Kennedy, there was an intimate emotional link between his sexual addiction--requiring continuous conquests of mistresses and prostitutes--and his equally macho cold war actions.

    That we use leaders as containers for our sexual and aggressive fantasies is responsible for many of our political problems, and could now lead to a useless bombing of the Iraqi people for Saddam's "rubbing our nose in the dirt." Should our bombs hit his anthrax plants, only American troops--not Iraqi civilians--are innoculated against anthrax. That our personal problems could lead to our setting off a plague in the Middle East which could kill more millions means that Bill Clinton may not be the only sacrificial victim in this deadly emotional drama.




    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-knew/546170/

    What Hillary Knew

    ‘Hillary Clinton once tweeted that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” What about Juanita Broaddrick?’ (CAITLIN FLANAGAN, NOV 17, 2017)

    If the ground beneath your feet feels cold, it’s because hell froze over the other day. It happened at 8:02 p.m. on Monday, when The New York Times published an op-ed called “I Believe Juanita.”

    Written by Michelle Goldberg, it was a piece that, 20 years ago, likely would have inflamed the readership of the paper and scandalized its editors. Reviewing the credibility of Broaddrick’s claim, Goldberg wrote that “five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened,” an important standard in reviewing the veracity of claims of past sex crimes.

    But Goldberg’s was not a single snowflake of truth; rather it was part of an avalanche of honesty in the elite press, following a seemingly innocuous tweet by the MSNBC host Chris Hayes. “As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is,” he wrote, “it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”


    Chris Hayes: ‘As gross and cynical and hypocrtical as the right's "what about Bill Clinton" stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.’ (3:11 PM - Nov 10, 2017)

    What happened next can only be compared to the moment when Glinda the Good Witch of the North came to Munchkinland and told the little people that it was finally safe. Come out, come out, wherever you are!


    The tweet galvanized not just the usual Clinton haters of Fox News but also a cadre of the most unexpected players: editors of the kind of prestige publications that have traditionally handled the accusations of Clinton’s accusers with nearly pathological disdain. But not this time. When Hayes’s tweet became a sensation, editors at the best shops gave marquee writers a radioactive assignment, which they gladly accepted. By midday Wednesday there was such a glut of “I Believe Juanita” pieces that Chelsea Clinton couldn’t have sold one.

    Peter Baker of The New York Times wrote a story about this watershed moment that included the testimony of the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias writing, “I think we got it wrong”; Jeff Greenfield of Politico observing that liberals could be having a “moral awakening”; and David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official, saying that even Monica Lewinsky—who never claimed she was abused in any way by Clinton—“deserves an apology from many of us she has never received.”

    Enough time has passed that outing Clinton for his alleged sex crimes now has the same retro “Oh grow up” feeling as revealing that John F. Kennedy had lovers—nobody’s perfect. But let’s not fool ourselves. “I believe Juanita” doesn’t just mean that you’re generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist.

    Broaddrick’s account—now accepted not just by a vast right-wing conspiracy, but also by a gathering number of liberal writers—is of an attack as brutal and unambiguous as the worst of the alleged assaults by Harvey Weinstein. Clinton, she says, manipulated his way into her hotel room, threw her down on the bed, yanked off her pantyhose, and raped her. She says he bit her lip hard enough to leave it bloodied. “You better put some ice on that,” she remembers him telling her as he walked out the door, headed off to his important work of feeling other people’s pain.

    When I have talked about these matters with progressives over the past week, I have encountered a fairly consistent response. It is no longer a frank denial of the weight and gravity of Broaddrick’s testimony. Rather it is a frustrated and dismissive statement of fact, one that can be reduced to the following formulation: I feel sorry for Juanita Broaddrick, but Bill Clinton was an excellent president. It’s a sentiment that encompasses the bitter and irreducible truth about being female in this world. There is sympathy for a rape victim—but she shouldn’t go around destroying a man’s reputation or family or career. Rape, unlike murder, is accepted as such an unremarkable fact of the human experience that a woman who spends years seeking redress for the crime comes to be viewed as some kind of lunatic, rejected lover, or tool of a vast conspiracy.

    When three of Clinton’s principal accusers accepted Donald Trump’s invitation to sit front-row at a presidential debate, they were largely regarded by the left as a gallery of ghouls and liars. But that was politics, and an election was at stake. Now—when all is lost—there’s been a change. The truth bats last.

    Liberals seem almost giddy with relief, admitting what they believe—which is how it always feels when you finally decide that you’re going to say what you really think and to hell with the consequences. The truth does set you free, but it usually comes at a price, which is why it will probably take another 20 years to open The New York Times and read an editorial called “Hillary Knew.”



    https://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/...es_his_cool_in

    Bill Clinton Loses His Cool in Democracy Now! Interview on Everything But Monica: Leonard Peltier, Racial Profiling, Iraqi Sanctions, Ralph Nader, the Death Penalty and Israel-Palestine (June 22, 2004)

    Former President Clinton’s memoirs have hit bookstores across the country. All three editions of the 1,000-page book — the abridged, the large print and the regular version — are in the top-ten bestseller list of online bookseller Amazon.com.

    The cable networks have already begun their orgy of Clinton-bashing with Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky their main thrust.

    A one-hour appearance on Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes kicked off the media extravaganza. The interview was promoted for days with a clip about Lewinsky, and the program was watched by an estimated 15.4 million viewers.

    In an interview airing tonight with Britain’s BBC television, Clinton reportedly loses his temper with host David Dimbleby when he is repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s outrage at the line of questioning is being billed as the first time that the former president has been seen to publicly lose his temper in an interview.

    But it did happen before: four years ago in an interview for Democracy Now! We rebroadcast that interview Amy Goodman conducted on Election Day 2000 with the then-sitting president. They discussed many topics you won’t likely hear raised this week: Leonard Peltier, racial profiling, the Iraqi sanctions, the death penalty, Ralph Nader and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At one point Clinton accused Amy of being “hostile and combative.” The next day, the President’s aides threatened to ban Amy from the White House. Amy and her brother David Goodman wrote about the interview in their new book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media that Love Them. [includes rush transcript]
    ________________________________________

    AMY GOODMAN: Former President Clinton’s memoirs have hit bookstores across the country. All three editions of the 1,000-page book — the abridged, the large print and the regular version — are in the top-ten of the online bookseller Amazon.com.

    The cable networks have already begun their orgy of Clinton-bashing with Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky their main thrust. A one-hour appearance on Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes kicked off the media extravaganza. In that interview, Clinton backed President Bush’s invasion of Iraq but said his timing to launch the war was wrong. The interview was promoed for days with an excerpt about Monica Lewinsky. The program was watched by more than 15 million viewers.

    And it went smoothly — unlike what happened with the BBC television interview that will air tonight. President Clinton reportedly loses his temper with host David Dimbleby when he’s repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s outrage at the line of questioning is being billed as the first time the former president has been seen publicly losing his temper in an interview.

    But it did happen before: four years ago in an interview for Democracy Now! Well, for a little background, let me read from my book, The Exception to the Rulers, which I wrote with my brother, journalist David Goodman. The chapter is called “Not on Bended Knee.”

    On Election Day 2000, I was in the Democracy Now! office at WBAI on Wall Street when I received a call minutes before going on the air at 9:00 a.m. The caller said, “Hello, I’m calling from White House Communications.” Things get very frantic moments before broadcasting, and we get a fair number of unusual calls. White Horse? That’s the famous tavern in Greenwich Village where poet Dylan Thomas was said to have drunk himself to death. Even the White Horse has a PR agent? I thought they had said “White Horse Communications.”

    Then the caller said the President would like to speak to me. I said, “The president of what?” We were on the air in less than a minute. “The President of the United States,” they said.

    “Oh, please,” I said.

    They said, “He’d like to call in to your radio program.”

    “Yeah, right,” I said. “Whatever.”

    I ran into the studio as the theme music for Democracy Now! was playing. Our producers were Brad Simpson, a history grad student, and Maria Carrion. Maria had produced Democracy Now! for two years before moving home to Spain, and had flown back just to help out for the election. That was supposed to mean three days, but this was the election of 2000. She ended up staying five weeks — from the night before the election to the day after the final “selection” of George W. Bush. I could hardly tell Maria and Brad, as they were frantically putting the finishing touches on the election show, that the President was calling in, especially because I didn’t believe it myself. But as the music swelled, I said, “By the way, that was the White House on the phone. They said the President might call in.”

    “Yeah, right,” Maria said. And I left it at that.

    Well, when Democracy Now! finished, we were about to head out for coffee when someone began shouting from master control: “President Clinton is on the phone!” Maria ran in, took the call, yelled for me to get into master control immediately. Gonzalo Aburto, the host of the Latino music show that follows Democracy Now! on Tuesdays, was at the control board.

    I ran into the studio and heard, over the blasting Latino beat, the disembodied voice of President Clinton saying, “Hello, hello, is anyone there? Can you hear me?” The faders on our microphones were all the way down, the music was all the way up. I practically dove over the master control board and pulled down the music, put up all of our mikes, and welcomed the President to WBAI.

    The Washington Post later wrote of the encounter, “For Clinton it was supposed to be two minutes of get-out-the vote happy talk with a progressive radio show and then: Gotta go.” Well, the story continued, “In this insider media age when oh-so-serious reporters measure status by access to the powerful, Goodman is the journalist as uninvited guest,” wrote Michael Powell. “You might think of the impolite question; she asks it.” And it went on from there.

    Well, let’s go directly to the interview. There was no question this was President Clinton’s voice, so we just launched in.

    AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, are you there?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I am. Can you hear me?

    AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we can.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: You’re calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that they are — at this point feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: There’s not a shred of evidence to support that. That’s what I would say. It’s true that both parties have wealthy supporters. But let me offer you — let me just give you the differences. Let’s look at economic policy. First of all, if you look at the last eight years, look where America was eight years ago, and look where it is today. We have the strongest economy in history. And for the first time in 30 years, the incomes of average people and lower-income working people have gone up 15 percent after inflation. The lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, the highest minority home ownership, the highest minority business ownership in history — that’s our record.

    If you look at our proposals, what do we propose to do? We propose a tax cut that helps average people, for child care, for long-term care, for paying for college tuition, for retirement savings. We propose to invest large amounts of money in education, healthcare, the environment, in our future. And we propose to keep paying down the debt, because that keeps interest rates lower.

    What do the Republicans propose? A tax cut that’s three times as big. Most of it goes to very wealthy people. The top one percent of the people get as much money as they would spend on healthcare, education and the environment combined. They propose to privatize Social Security. And if you add the two things together, we’ll be back in deficits, which means the economy will go downhill and interest rates will be higher for ordinary people.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: So, look, that’s just one example. You asked the question. There’s not —

    AMY GOODMAN: Right.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Look at campaign finance reform. The Democrats are for it; the Republican leadership kills it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me just —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Look at the environment. The Dem — we’ve got the cleanest environment in history, the best environmental record in history. The Republicans want to reverse our environmental record. So, give me — you can’t give one example of where both parties are dominated by large corporations and therefore there’s no difference. The American people’s lives are a lot better than they were eight years ago.

    The truth is there’s an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to grow the economy is to give more money to the wealthy, and the Democrats, who believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, since it’s rare to get you on the phone, let me ask you another question. And that is, what is your position on granting Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist, executive clemency?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I don’t — I don’t have a position I can announce yet. I think if — I believe there is a new application for him in there. And when I have time, after the election is over, I’m going to review all the remaining executive clemency applications and, you know, see what the merits dictate. I will try to do what I think the right thing to do is based on the evidence. And I’ve never had the time actually to sit down myself and review that case. I know it’s very important to a lot of people, maybe on both sides of the issue. And I think I owe it to them to give it an honest look-see. So, part of my responsibilities in the last 10 weeks of office after the election will be to review the requests for pardons and executive clemencies and give them a fair hearing. And I pledge to do that.

    AMY GOODMAN: And you will give an answer in his case?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Oh, yeah, I’ll decide one way or the other.

    AMY GOODMAN: And finally, do you support a moratorium on the death penalty, given the studies that show how racist it has been — how it has been applied in a racist manner?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I think in the case of — I certainly support what the Governor of Illinois did, because there was clear evidence in Illinois that a lot of mistakes had been made. In the case of the federal government, I have asked the Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive review and to let me — and to report back to us on the racial disparities and on any question of guilt, on adequate assistance of counsel, on all those things, to determine whether there should be a moratorium. And I haven’t gotten her findings yet. Now, so far, the only two cases which have come up have been deferred, while we do this study. And so, when that comes in and if it comes in while I’m still in office, then I’ll make a judgment. And if it doesn’t, I think that the next president, I would hope, would make the same decision, based on the merits, based on what the evidence shows.

    The disturbing thing to me is that there’s not only an apparent racial disparity on death row, but also — in the federal government, but also way over half the cases come from a relatively small number of the U.S. attorneys’ offices, which is — you know, it’s disturbing.

    But again, let me just say this. If you’re concerned about that, that’s a good reason to vote for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, and Hillary for the Senate, and for the people in New Jersey who can hear you, for Jon Corzine, because we know the Democrats care about these issues, and we know they’re not very important to the Republicans.

    AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Gore —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: And so, that’s another example of another reason you ought to vote for the Democrats.

    AMY GOODMAN: Gore supports the death penalty.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: He does, but —

    AMY GOODMAN: And Lieberman.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Yes, they do. But there’s a difference in supporting it and thinking that you would carry it out even if you thought the system was fundamentally unfair. His opponent —

    AMY GOODMAN: But the studies show that it is.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But the studies are not complete, because the studies have to — what the Attorney General is doing is not just looking at everybody that’s been convicted, but everybody that could have been charged that wasn’t. There’s a lot more stuff that needs to be done. And it may confirm the initial view of who’s on the death row. But I think what — you ought to look at that as compared with Texas, for example, where there was evidence that — lawyers falling asleep in their trials were not enough to deter Texas from continuing to carry out the death penalty, which I thought was unacceptable. And so, I think that if you’re interested in having somebody that at least has the capacity to look at the fairness of this, you only have one choice.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I guess many people were quite disturbed that when you first ran for president, you went back in the midst of your campaign to Arkansas and presided over the execution of a mentally impaired man.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Yeah, but let me — let’s go back to the facts here. He was not mentally impaired when he committed the crime. He became mentally impaired because he was wounded after he murdered somebody. And the law says that it’s your mental state at the time you committed the crime. That’s something no one else ever — no one ever says that when they talk about it. Had he been mentally impaired when he committed the crime, I would never have carried out the death penalty, because he was not in a position to know what he was doing. That is not what the facts were.

    GONZALO ABURTO: President —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Secondly, if I had not gone home, I would have been accused of putting a tough decision off on somebody else.

    GONZALO ABURTO: President Clinton, my name is Gonzalo Aburto. I’m a Latino living here in New York. I’m the host of La Nueva Alternativa here at BAI. I want to ask you why Latinas and Latinos in the United States should vote for Gore and Lieberman.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I think they should vote for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for several reasons. First of all, we are committed to fairness for legal immigrants, and we’re trying to pass a law right now to guarantee that. And our opponents in the Republican Party are opposed to that, and that’s — and the congressional leaders are opposed to it, which is another reason to vote for Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and for Hillary, for Jon Corzine in New Jersey. The Latinos should know that the Democrats favor fairness for immigrants.

    Secondly, we favor affirmative action.

    Thirdly, we favor hate crimes legislation and employment non-discrimination legislation and the appointments of judges to the Supreme Court that will protect civil rights and human rights.

    And fourthly, let me say again, we have had an economic policy that has dramatically improved the lives of Latinos. When I became president, the Latino unemployment rate was 11.8 percent. Today it is five percent, the lowest in the history of the country. So, if you’re looking for somebody that wants to make sure everybody is part of America’s present and future, Al Gore is your man.

    He also proposes to put more money into the schools in the poorest parts of our country to modernize the schools, to hire more teachers, to connect all the classrooms to the internet. He proposes healthcare reforms that would provide medicine for seniors on Medicare and more health insurance for children and for the — for the working parents of low-income people. The Latino working families have the highest level of uninsured people of any population group in the country. So, for all those reasons, Latinos should vote for Gore and Lieberman and Hillary.

    AMY GOODMAN: Yet, despite massive protests in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy continues to bomb, and you’ve — the island of Vieques. And you have authorized this. Why?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, now, wait a minute. Wait, wait, just a minute now. The United States Navy has an agreement with the government of Puerto Rico, the representative of all the people of Puerto Rico, to turn back — if — to turn back the western half of Vieques to Puerto Rico, to not have any live fire bombing — there’s no live fire bombing going on there — and to terminate all the training within a couple of years, during which time they have to find a new place to train.

    So this — this training that’s going on now is subsequent to an agreement.

    Now, the Republicans in Congress broke the agreement and, instead of giving the western part of the island to Puerto Rico, gave it to the Interior Department to manage. If I can’t find a way to give that island, the western part of the island, back to the people of Puerto Rico and to honor the agreement that the government of Puerto Rico itself made, with the support of the local leaders, including the mayor of Vieques, then the people of Puerto Rico, I think, have the right to say the federal government broke its word and the training has to stop right now.

    But I think the training should stop, because the people don’t want it there. But we need a place to train, and we’re in the process of finding another place. And we made an agreement with the Governor and the people of Puerto Rico, [the elected representatives, to turn over the western part of the island, to invest a lot of money in helping to build up the tourism capacity and protect the environmental structure of the Vieques, and to otherwise compensate the people of] Puerto Rico and the island of Vieques for the training in the past.

    So, I think it was a good agreement, and I think the agreement ought to be honored. And I was disappointed that the Congress didn’t fully honor it. But I think I can find a way to keep the commitment of the federal government anyway. And that’s what I’m trying to do.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President, what do you think about a possible amnesty for undocumented — trabajadores indocumentados?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I think that — that’s what I meant earlier. I’ve got a bill before Congress now, that would treat legal immigrants from Honduras, from — from Guatemala, from Haiti, from Salvador, in the same way that the Congress has already voted to treat immigrants from Cuba and Nicaragua. I think that it’s not right the way we have treated a lot of these immigrant populations differently. I know there aren’t many Liberians probably among your listeners. Most of them live up in the Rhode Island, Massachusetts area. But they also are being treated unfairly, and I’m trying to get them included in immigrant fairness.

    And again, I’m having a big fight with the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress. So the Democrats are for that, and the — and the Republicans aren’t. So, that’s another reason, if you care about that, that we need to have someone to — to stand up to them. And that means that we need Al Gore. And if — I think the Democrats have a good chance to win the House and maybe the Senate. But if we don’t win, it’s very important that Gore be the president, because somebody’s got to be there to stop the extremist Republicans in Congress. And therefore, we need every Democratic senator we can get. We need Corzine in New Jersey. We need Hillary in New York. And we need — most important, we’ve got to have Gore and Lieberman in the White House.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, U.N. figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That’s not true. That’s not true. And that’s not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War — you said this — how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer: $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer: $19 billion, that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He’s got more money now, $3 billion a year more, than he had nine years ago. If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it’s because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children.

    We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapons system and his military state. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shiites. He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo. And if they’re hungry or they’re not getting medicine, it’s his own fault.

    AMY GOODMAN: The past two U.N. heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the U.S. policy — U.S.-U.N. policy “genocidal.” What is your response to that?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: They’re wrong. They think that we should reward — Saddam Hussein says, “I’m going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do, so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then I’ll stop starving my kids.” And so, we’re supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. That’s just not right. I know that they — you know, the truth is, a lot of these people want to start doing business with Saddam Hussein again because they want his money. And, you know, they want his — the money he earns from oil.

    But the — it is an absolute fact that he has more money today than he did before the embargo. So if any child is without food or medicine, it’s because he has made a deliberate decision to let them die, to try to build up pressure to lift the embargo, so he can spend that money however he wants. He doesn’t want to spend that money on his people. He wants to spend that money to become the military dictator of the Middle East again.

    Now, if people want to let him do it, that’s one thing. But, you know, I have consistently supported changing and relaxing the embargo, since I’ve been president, to make absolutely sure that he had enough money and enough freedom in the use of the money to rebuild the country economically and to try to feed those children and get them medicine. There were a lot of problems with the embargo in the beginning. There were legitimate criticisms. But he now has more money, with the absolute freedom to spend it on food and medicine and development and medical care of all kinds, than he did before the embargo was put in. That’s a fact; no one can dispute that. So, nobody can figure out why there are problems among the children, except that he won’t spend the money on them. He spends the money on his own military, on his own crowd, and he avoids spending it on a lot of kids who need it, so he can blame us, so he can actually get total control over his money, so he can rebuild his apparatus.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: And I think — you know, remember, this is the only guy, the only world leader today, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And the American people, in my judgment, should give him all the money he needs to take care of his kids, but should do everything we can, and even if we’re alone, to try to stop him from being in a position of murdering his kids again and murdering other children in the Middle East. That’s what I believe.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton on Election Day 2000. We’ll continue with the interview, which got rather heated, in a moment.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: We continue with our half-hour interview with President Clinton on Election Day 2000, this segment begun with a question from WBAI producer Gonzalo Aburto.

    GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President, are we going to see a substantial change in the policy through Cuba, regarding Cuba?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, let me say, we were on the way to that change. Back in 1996, we had a lot of changes in my first term in our policy toward Cuba, and we were working our way toward a reconciliation. And the Cubans were working their way toward more openness, more freedom for their farmers and their people. We were really making headway. And then they illegally shot down those two planes, and four people died on the planes. And the Congress passed the Cuba — the Helms-Burton bill, so-called. And I don’t have much flexibility to do much more.

    What I have done with Cuba is to use the maximum extent of my legal powers to promote people-to-people contacts with Cuba and the Cuban people. I do believe there that the Cuban people have suffered because of the embargo, and we should do more in the area of food, in the area of medicine, in the area of people-to-people contacts. And, you know, I believe that it’s just a question of time ’til the United States and Cuba are reconciled. And I think that the situation is tragic.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you just —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But it wouldn’t have happened if Castro hadn’t shot those planes down out of the air, in blatant violation of international law. It was just murder. There’s no other — there’s no way to put a fine point on it. I mean, and we were — sometimes I think he doesn’t want the embargo lifted, because it’s an excuse for the problems that he has with his own administration, because he knew where we were going, he knew we were moving to reconcile, and he knew good and well that it was a total violation of international law to murder people who were in unarmed airplanes.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you justify imposing the embargo against Cuba and lifting it against China, normalizing relations with China?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, first of all, China hasn’t killed any of our pilots lately. They haven’t murdered any Americans. As a matter of fact, the United States accidentally and tragically killed some Chinese citizens during our military campaign in Kosovo.

    And we have differences with China that we think can best be resolved. China is a nuclear power; we think they have missile capacity. We’ve worked very hard with them to reduce the threats of sales of missiles to renegade states, to make the world a safer place. And they’ve worked with us on peace on the Korean Peninsula, to help the North Korean situation.

    And we would — as I said, I believe if Castro hadn’t shot those planes down and the Congress hadn’t passed a law which prohibits me from doing anything with the embargo, that we might have made some real progress there. But it — sooner or later, this is going to happen, and the sooner, the better. The sooner we can be reconciled with the people of Cuba, the better. But Mr. Castro is going to have to make some changes, and, you know, you can’t keep just throwing people in jail for human rights violations and expect the United States to do nothing, with this huge Cuban population here. I hope that we can make some more progress.

    And believe me, it would have happened if he hadn’t shot those planes down. And sometimes I wonder if he shot them down just to make sure the embargo couldn’t be lifted, because as long as he can blame the United States, then he doesn’t have to answer to his own people for the failures of his economic policy. I wish it were different, and maybe it will be under the next administration.

    AMY GOODMAN: Amnesty International has described what the Israeli forces are now doing in the Occupied Territories as —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Listen, I can’t do a whole press conference here. It’s Election Day, and I’ve got a lot of people and places to call.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I guess these are the questions that are very important to our listeners, and these are the questions that —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I’ve answered them all.

    AMY GOODMAN: Right, and we appreciate that. And —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I have answered them all. Now, let me just tell you, on the Israeli-Palestinian thing, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and I were together in Egypt. We agreed on a three-pronged strategy to end the violence and restore the peace talks. And with regard to the Amnesty International findings, what we agreed to do was to set up a fact-finding commission to look into what happened, how the recent violence started, and what can be done to avoid it recurring. And the agreement was that that would happen as soon as the violence was stopped. And we’ve had some progress in the last two or three days. Everybody is working hard.

    And I think the less I say right now, the better, publicly, because I don’t want to complicate things. I’m working my heart out to stop the violence, get the commission appointed, and get the peace process started. In the Middle East, which is something I know more than a little bit about, the only answer to this, over the long run, is an agreement that covers all the issues that the Palestinians feel aggrieved by, guarantees the Israelis security and acceptance within the region, and is a just and lasting peace. That’s the only answer to this in the long run. And we’ve just got to work through it.

    I have some hope that in the next few days we’ll be able to do it. Mr. Arafat is coming to see me on Thursday. Mr. Barak is coming to see me on Sunday. And we’ll try to get it resolved. That’s all I can tell you now. And I think —

    AMY GOODMAN: Why doesn’t —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I think the United Nations will support — well, I know they will —- the implementation of the agreement we made at Sharm el-Sheikh –

    AMY GOODMAN: Why not —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: —- which would –

    AMY GOODMAN: Why not support a U.N. force in the Middle East for the illegal occupation of the territories? And at this point I think we’re around 150 people being killed in the Occupied Territories, overwhelmingly Palestinian.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: You can support it if you want to, but the Israelis won’t support it. And there was a war in which that happened. And if you want to make peace, then you have to do things that both sides can agree with. That’s what a peace agreement is. And I do not believe that, just as I don’t think Israel can forever impose their situation in the Middle East, and they don’t either, which is why we started the Oslo peace process seven years ago; neither do I think that, you know, everybody else saying the U.N. is going to impose their will on Israel on its own territory will work out either.

    We’ve got to have a peace agreement here. That’s the only way this is ever going to be resolved. And I don’t think that we should do anything or say anything right now, except something that will stop people from getting killed, and get the peace process started again.

    AMY GOODMAN: Many people say that Ralph Nader is at the high percentage point he is in the polls because you’ve been responsible for taking the Democratic Party to the right. What do you say to listeners who are listening around the area right now —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I’m glad you ask that.

    AMY GOODMAN: — to allay their concerns?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I’m glad you ask that. That’s the last question I’ve got time for. I’ll be happy to answer that.

    What is the measure of taking the Democratic Party to the right? That we cut the welfare rolls in half? That poverty is at a 20-year low? That child poverty has been cut by a third in our administration? That the incomes of average Americans have gone up 15 percent after inflation? That poverty among seniors has gone below 10 percent for the first time in American history? That we have the lowest African American, the lowest Latino unemployment rate in the history of the country? That we have a 500 percent increase in the number of minority kids taking advanced placement tests? That the schools in this country, that the test scores among —- since we’ve required all the schools to have basic standards, test scores among African Americans and other minorities have gone up steadily? Now, what –

    AMY GOODMAN: Can I say what some people —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me — now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question you’ve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?

    AMY GOODMAN: They’ve been critical questions.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and I’m going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I — and you have never been able to combat the facts I have given you. Now, you listen to this.

    The other thing Ralph Nader says is that, you know, he’s pure as Caesar’s wife on the environment. Under this administration, 43 million more Americans are breathing cleaner air. We have safer drinking water, safer food, cleaner water. We have more land set aside than any administration in history since Theodore Roosevelt. We have cleaned up three times as many toxic waste sites as the previous administrations did in 12 years. And we passed a chemical right-to-know law that’s a very tough law. It’s the best environmental record in history.

    Al Gore’s opponent — and one of the two of them are going to be president — Al Gore’s opponent has promised to weaken the clean air standards and repeal a lot of the land protections. Now, those are the facts. People can say whatever they want to. Those are the facts.

    AMY GOODMAN: What people say is that you pushed through NAFTA, that we have the highest population of prisoners in the industrialized world, at over two million, that more people are on death row in this country than anywhere else, and that people —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, alright. Now, OK —

    AMY GOODMAN: —- have the death penalty imposed on them –

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That’s fine. But two-thirds of the American people support that. I think there are too many people in prison, too. I have called for a total evaluation of the people in the federal prison system, a review of the federal sentencing guidelines. I did my best to persuade Congress to get rid of the discrepancy between crack — crack and powdered cocaine in the sentencing guidelines. I agree with that. Nobody ever said America was perfect.

    I disagree, I think NAFTA has been good for America. I think it’s been good. It has helped to reduce illegal immigration. It’s helped to provide a decent standard of life in Mexico. I think it has been good. I think the agreement we made to open our markets to Africa and the poor countries in the Caribbean were good for America.

    People complain about our trade agreements. Trade is at — accounting for 30 percent of our economic growth, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. How can anybody make a serious case that trade’s been bad for America? We have a 15 percent increase in average income of ordinary Americans, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, and the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded among African Americans and Hispanics. Now, I don’t think you can make a sane case that if we closed up our markets, that either Africa or Latin America or America would be better off.

    AMY GOODMAN: What about —

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: The real problem you’ve got are the results. This country is in good shape. Now, I’ve talked to you a long time. It’s Election Day. There are a lot of other people —

    AMY GOODMAN: We appreciate it.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: — in America, and I’ve got to go.

    AMY GOODMAN: One last question, what about granting an executive order ending racial profiling in this country?

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I expect that we will end racial profiling. Here’s the deal. The Attorney General is supposed to give me a report on that. I’m opposed to it. Al Gore is opposed to it. Here’s the deal. Look, I had some–I have two people who work for me in the White House, who were wrongly stopped, handcuffed and hassled the other day. I have spoken out against racial profiling, and Hillary has made it a big issue in New York.

    And so, here’s the issue, and here’s what we’re working on. We’re trying to find a way to issue orders and rules and regulations that end racial profiling, that clearly do not prevent law enforcement officials from investigating particular crimes. And there is a way to do it, and we’re working on it, and the Attorney General is working on it. But, you know, Janet Reno was a prosecutor in Miami, in Dade County, for 12 years. She dealt with a large African American population, a large Haitian population, a large Latino population. She had a great reputation with all of them. And she’s trying to fashion a resolution of this that ends racial profiling, that clearly allows law enforcement to continue. And that’s where this is now. This is going to be done. And we have to do it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Thank you for spending the time, President Clinton.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Thank you.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton on Election Day 2000. I interviewed him with WBAI producer Gonzalo Aburto. Well, a day after that program, I got a call from the White House press office. A staffer let me know how furious they were with me for breaking the ground rules for the interview. “Ground rules?” I asked. “What ground rules? He called up to be interviewed. I interviewed him.”

    “He called to discuss getting out the vote,” they said, “and you strayed from the topic. You also kept him on much longer than the two to three minutes that we had agreed to,” she said.

    “President Clinton is the most powerful person in the world,” I said. “He can hang up if he wants to.”

    Well, the Clinton administration threatened to ban me from the White House and suggested to a Newsday reporter that they might punish me for my attitude by denying me access — not that I had any to lose. The White House spokesperson said, “Any good reporter understands if you violate the ground rules in an interview, that it’s going to be taken into account the next time you are seeking an interview.”

    Well, first of all, we hadn’t agreed to any ground rules. Clinton called us. Second, we wouldn’t have agreed to any. The only ground rule for good reporting I know is that you don’t trade your principles for access. We call it the “access of evil.”

    Oh, and this update: Leonard Peltier remains in jail. President Clinton didn’t pardon him. Instead, Clinton granted a pardon to fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who had been living in Switzerland since a 1983 indictment on charges of wire fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and trading with Iran in violation of a U.S. embargo. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, was a major donor to the campaigns of both the president and his wife, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Peltier said in response, quote, “We can see who is granted clemency and why. The big donors to the president’s campaign were able to buy justice, something we just couldn’t afford. Meanwhile, many political prisoners continue to languish unjustly, proof that this nation’s talk about reconciliation is nothing but empty rhetoric,” Peltier said. He remains in prison at Leavenworth.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...red-nostalgia/

    “11 times Bill Clinton was accused of assault or rape: remember this when Dems say accusers should be believed”
    (JULY 27, 2016) [BY NANCY FRENCH]

    “In the spring of 1971, I met a girl.” That’s how Bill Clinton began his speech at the Democratic National Convention. Many women across America thought, “Really? Which one?”

    Now that women are coming out of the woodwork accusing Republican nominee Donald Trump of sexual abuse, the liberals are saying we should believe them, to listen to their stories.

    I agree. But we should also listen to THESE women’s stories:

    1. Three college students

    In 1969, Bill Clinton was a 23-year-old Rhodes scholar at Oxford University when he was accused of sexual assault by a fellow student, an English woman named Eileen Wellstone, 19, after the two met at a local pub. Bill acknowledged that he had sex with this woman, but insists it was a consensual encounter.

    An unidentified State Department employ filed a report of the incident at the time with his superiors. Now retired he said, “There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma…But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes scholar charged with rape.”

    Charges were never brought against Clinton. He left Oxford one year later without earning his degree.

    In 1972, a 22-year-old Yale student contacted campus police and accused Bill of sexual assault. He was dating Hillary Rodham at the time. Retired campus police have since confirmed the report. Again, no charges were filed.

    By 1974, Clinton was a law professor at the University of Arkansas and still up to no good. One of his students alleged that this soon-to-be governor groped her and forced his hand inside her shirt while alone in his office. When confronted by the girl’s faculty advisor, Clinton blamed her for coming on to him. The girl left UofA shortly after the incident and has declined to go on record ever since.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/2/

    2. Juanita Broaddrick

    Bill’s next victim became a household name in 1999 when “Jane Doe #5” identified herself in a Dateline interview. Broaddrick’s tearful recounting of her rape by the then-Arkansas attorney general deepened an already national scandal.

    At 35 years old, Broaddrick had volunteered for Bill’s 1978 gubernatorial campaign. A meeting was set to meet in the lobby of Broaddrick’s hotel until Bill suggested a venue change to avoid the press: her hotel room.

    After a few minutes of shop talk, Bill kissed her without consent. She resisted, reminding that she was married. But he persisted, bit her lip and pushed her down on the bed. Her repeated requests to stop were rejected. His final words to her as he put on his sunglasses and grabbed for the door, “You better get some ice on that,” referring to her swollen lip.

    Weeks later, Broaddrick says she was approached by Hillary Clinton at a rally and intimidated by Hillary Clinton to keep quiet. She said Hillary thanked her for “everything [she] does for Bill,” and repeated it with a cold, hard stare and an extra tight grip on her hand: “Everything you do for Bill.”


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/3/

    3. Carolyn Moffet

    Carolyn Moffet was a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979 when she was invited to Governor Clinton’s hotel room after a political fundraiser.

    “I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt,” she said. “He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend, and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room”.

    During the years between 1978-1980, Arkansas state troopers assigned to protect the governor received at least seven complaints from women who claim Bill forced himself on them sexually. The running joke at the time was, “Who’s next?” A trooper escort to Clinton’s hotel room were a regular occurrence, often more than once per night.


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/6/

    6. Dolly Kyle

    Dolly Kyle and William Jefferson Clinton were classmates in high school. But in the mid-1970s, their relationship turned sexual and lasted until January of 1992. After Clinton won the presidency, the attorney Kyle began writing a book about the affair, but claims President Clinton threatened to destroy her in the media for it. She explained the Bill/Hillary dynamic in her book “Hillary, The Other Woman,” that Hillary paid the bills for him when Bill was at Yale.

    “Hillary was upholding her part of the deal to get Billy elected president, after which it would be her turn to be the first woman in the Oval Office. Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people. It was always a codependent, co-conspiratorial grab for money and power and more money and more power.”


    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchr...d-nostalgia/8/

    8. Kathleen Willey

    In 1998, during the height of the Clinton-White House sex scandal, Kathleen Willey accused President Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1993 during an Oval Office meeting. Willey, a White House volunteer at the time, said that the president groped her breast and put her hand on his genitals.

    More recently, Willey has labeled Hillary an “enabler” of Bill’s infidelities.

    “She enabled his behavior,” she said. “It’s as simple as that. She looks the other way.”

    “She might throw a tantrum,” Willey added, “but she enabled it to happen again and again and again and again. And then she chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again and again and again. And that’s how it works.”



    - From The Paradigm: The Ancient Blueprint That Holds the Mystery of Our Times; pages 79-81 (Ch. 11—The Prophecy):

    What was it that happened to America after the end of the Clinton presidency? The nation would be shaken by two epic events. One of these was the global financial implosion of 2008. Could this have been one of the repercussions and consequences of what was actually sown in the days of the Clintons and then fell in the days of a subsequent president?

    According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Clinton supported and signed into law more legislation deregulating the financial realm than any other president. He pushed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The act overturned key restraints of the Glass-Steagall law, which had barred investment banks from engaging in commercial banking activities and which had been in place since the Great Depression. [Julia Maues, “Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall),” Federal Reserve History, https://www.federalreservehistory.or...s_steagall_act ]

    Further, through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, he deregulated derivatives. This act caused the very risky derivatives market to become what one writer described as a “laissez-faire Wild West.” Further, he signed into law the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. This would lead to a wave of banking mergers and would eviscerate state regulation of the banking industry. [Bill Medley, “Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994,” Federal Reserve History, https://www.federalreservehistory.or...al_act_of_1994 ]

    Beyond that Clinton would change the laws concerning government-sponsored enterprises, loosening standards and controls, and would direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to massively invest in sub-prime mortgages. [Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending,” New York Times, September 30, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bu...e-lending.html ]

    Undoubtedly Clinton thought he was doing right in all these things and did not fathom the consequences his decisions would have. Nevertheless, the effect of any one of these things on the coming global financial implosion was major. But their combined effect was devastating. Thus the Columbia Journalism Review would conclude:

    “The bottom line is: Bill Clinton was responsible for more damaging financial deregulation—and thus, for the [2008] financial crisis—than any other president.” [Ryan Chittum, “Bill Clinton on Deregulation: ‘The Republicans Made Me Do It!’” Columbia Journalism Review, October 1, 2013, https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/b...ublicans_m.php ]

    Thus the overall dynamic of delayed consequences and deferred repercussions that marked the reign of Ahab with regard to Israel’s history can likewise be seen in the presidency of Bill Clinton and the years that followed. The global financial collapse that struck America and the world in 2008 was a consequence deferred from the days of the Clinton administration.

    But there was another epic global event and crisis that took place right after the end of the Clinton years. It was 9/11. Could the same dynamic of Ahab’s paradigm apply as well to the worst terror attack in American history? Could what happened in New York City and Washington, DC, have been another deferred consequence of the Clinton years?

    We have already witnessed the answer. It was during the Clinton years that Osama Bin Laden surfaced as a danger to America and the world. Clinton passed on the chance to kill Bin Laden just as Ahab had passed on the chance to kill Israel’s nemesis invader Ben-Hadad. And as we have seen, Clinton would even admit that much just ten hours before the planes struck their targets.

    At the same time that the king is reproved for his sins, he will be given word concerning the coming calamity.

    It was in Naboth’s vineyard that King Ahab was given a word from Elijah both reproving him for his sin and prophesying of future calamity. In December 1998 President Clinton was reproved before the US Congress, impeached on the charges of perjury and the obstruction of justice concerning the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Could he also have been given a word that same month on a future calamity?

    It was that same month, December 1998, that Clinton was given a secret memo from the CIA. It was entitled “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.”* It was the most definitive warning yet given of the calamity that would come to American shores. As with Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard, the king had received both a rebuke for his sins and the foretelling of the future calamity.

    * “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks,” Central Intelligence Agency Memo, December 4, 1998, Declassified and Approved for Release July 12, 2004,
    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001110635.pdf ]
    Last edited by HERO; 08-20-2018 at 12:03 PM.

  31. #31
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    ExFx is certain, though not certain which one.

  32. #32
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like EIE-Fe for him and LSI-Ti for Hilary.

    bill's enneagram - 3w2 sp/so

  33. #33
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He propelled himself from governorship of an overlooked hick state to the presidency largely through his charisma and rhetoric. Fe works.

    Maritsa was right that he uses a goodly amount of Te, but I interpret that as a combination of role and the nature of the job.

    EIE is a decent typing for him. SEEness people observe is probably just his good-ol’-boy shtick, which he had to cultivate to be gov of Arkansas.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  34. #34
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    He seems like a huge pleasure seeker, I have trouble seeing EIE because of this.

    EIE political figures always seem to me purposeful and serious (in a non Reinin way) and seem to see the world in dramatic colours.

    Bill Clinton seems quite laid back in his worldview, like there are things to fix but it's not all revolutionary either, lol. Not that all betas are revolutionaries, but valuing types seem to have more radical views and call for more radical action. Bill is always moderate and in the middle. This seems more valuing.

  35. #35
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,533
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bill Clinton - ESFP - Napoleon


  36. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @HERO who has time to read all that shite?

    Anyway, I type him as SEE. I'm open to hearing more reasons in the EIE argument.

  37. #37
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ~°~
    Posts
    1,488
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Many reasons could be SLI. I didn't vote though. At least, not yet.

  38. #38
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ~°~
    Posts
    1,488
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SEE ESFP-Se

    aka THE COACH from my archetypes list.
    ~* astralsilky



    Each essence is a separate glass,
    Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
    Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
    A thousand colors, but the Light is One.

    Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet


    Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...

  39. #39
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whichever type is activity to Monica Lewinsky's.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    578
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Intuitive

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •