TNR BLOGS

May 11, 2008 | 7:21 PM
May 11, 2008 | 1:47 PM
May 11, 2008 | 12:39 AM

May 09, 2008 | 2:11 PM
May 09, 2008 | 1:07 PM
May 08, 2008 | 5:01 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 10, 2008 | 1:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 6:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 2:53 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.05.2008
Bill Clinton Goes After TNR Alum!

Since Hillary Clinton is now the anti-intellectual candidate, it is not entirely surprising that her husband has taken up a similar pointy-heads-hate-regular-folks line. Apprently, though, the elites are now so invested in tearing down the Clintons that they are... quoting Clinton campaign advisers (imagine that). So, in The New Yorker last week, former TNR writer Ryan Lizza quoted someone as follows:

When I asked what he was doing on Election Day, a Clinton campaign adviser said, “I think he’s leading a caravan of Wal-Mart greeters to the polls.”

 And here is Bill Clinton, as quoted by The Baltimore Sun this morning:

He skewered a recent New Yorker magazine article...Only in Clinton's retelling, it was the article's author, not his wife's adviser, who was laughing at him.

"You know, there was an article in one of the publications the other day making fun of me for being Hillary's ambassador to rural America. 'They sent that ol' boy out there running around these little towns. What in the world's he doing?' And this guy ended by - he thought he was insulting me - he said, 'Next thing you know, Bill Clinton will be taking Wal-Mart greeters to the polls,'" he said, prompting squeals of delight from an actual Wal-Mart greeter in the crowd and her friends.

"That's the kind of thing those people that aren't for us say. You know, they think we're dumber'n we are. I know, cuz I grew up in a place like this, and I figured out that people are just as smart here as anywhere else. But they ain't figured it out yet."

Charming. 

P.S. As a side note, there is some humor to be found in Rhodes Cook's New York Times op-ed on how Senator Clinton can win the popular vote:

That’s a daunting challenge, but she could do it. Here’s how. First, she needs a very high turnout in the remaining states. Second, she would have to maximize her vote in the states where she is positioned to do well. Third, she would need to run close to even with Mr. Obama in states where the terrain is less favorable.

You don't say...

--Isaac Chotiner 

Posted: Monday, May 05, 2008 1:51 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

lymon1 said:

Isaac, you are intending to be funny by pretending to be the condescending know-it-all in the second part of the post that Bill Clinton straw-mans in the first part, right?

May 5, 2008 2:09 PM

icarusr said:

So Mr. Rhodes Scholar is now dumping on the reporter who sank George Allen and gave the Senate to the Democrats, on the basis that "they think we're dumber'n we are".

No, Mr. President.  No one thinks you, or Mrs. Clinton, are dumber than you are.  Unscrupulous, greedy for power, unprincipled, yes; dumb, no.  As for the average voter, with whom you have only your background until the age of twenty in common ... well, one can only hope they are smart enough to see through the Odd Couple running for power again ...

Yours Sincerely

Abouttowretch Inthe Midwest

May 5, 2008 2:14 PM

williamyard said:

Bill Clinton's job description in a Hillary White House :

1. Fundraising to pay off Hill's campaign debt, fund his library, and fund her library.

2. Exacting retribution against foes (Democrats or Republicans, past or present, real or imagined, his or Hill's).

3. Spinning the media.

4. Crafting earmarks for donors or their Congressional lapdogs.

5. Distracting media while his wife makes mischief elsewhere.

6. Making mischief elsewhere while his wife distracts media.

7. Interfering in internal policy and staffing decisions.

8. Showing interns how to polish the Presidential podium.

In short, leadership!

May 5, 2008 2:25 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

icarusr - thank you.

Signed,

Already wretched in NY

May 5, 2008 2:26 PM

maldini said:

Boy does the Internet make lying a lot harder to get away with. But I sure am tickled Bill keeps trying.

May 5, 2008 2:28 PM

boxofrox said:

Old Billy boy has reacquired his radar.

May 5, 2008 2:29 PM

boneill said:

You know what actually makes me the angriest?

"You know, there was an article in one of the publications the other"

"One of the publications"????  The fucking New Yorker?  I know you and your rich friends read it, Bill.  It's a good magazine.  But Mr Regular Guy can't say that.  

May 5, 2008 2:48 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Bill Clinton is the most honest person...like...EVER

May 5, 2008 2:53 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Clearly, they set Lizza up. Played him like a garage sale accordion.

May 5, 2008 2:59 PM

dkrieger said:

Chotiner is being a tad disingenuous here. Lizza's quote from the campaign adviser is meant to be embarrassing to Clinton – Lizza is using it here as a "gotcha" _ (i.e. "See, even his own people admit Clinton is shameless when it comes to chasing votes....") The decision to use that quote in that context was Lizza's -- not the campaign adviser's. Bill rightly blamed the attempt at embarrassing him on the New Yorker and the writer, not on Hillarly's hapless campaign worker who probably got raked over the coals for uttering the unfortunate comment.

May 5, 2008 3:08 PM

icarusr said:

Bone: reminded me of "that woman".  The man's got problems ...

But, aside from the fact that uttering the name of the magazine would have marked him as an "intellectual", it would have reminded them thar good 'Onest folks that former President William Jefferson Clinton, net worth >$50 million (no elite he) lives in Sod-, er, I mean, New York.

Here's a Johnny Cum-Lately New Yorker, married to a New York Senator, dumping on the New Yorker.  Ugh.

May 5, 2008 3:13 PM

icarusr said:

Isaac: Ms. Cook left off the fourth important development: change the rules in mid-stream:

"With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives."

At first, I thought this was yet another HuffPo prop.  Then this confirmation:

"Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31."

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html

Out goes the Credential Committee, out go efforts at consensus building, in comes the seating of delegates in an election in which Mrs. Clinton was the only candidate.  When I suggested that Mrs. Clinton exhibited signs of megalomania and populism similar to Mugabe and Ahmadinejad, someone here took me to task for an improper comparison.  He was absolutely right.  Even Mugabe and Ahmdinejad would not longer run single-candidate elections ...

May 5, 2008 3:26 PM

liberal reformer said:

This Clintons' have gone hayseed is ageing very rapidly. MEMO TO BILL AND HILLARY: STOP BEFORE YOU ALIENATE EVEN MORE SUPERDELEGATES. Y'all  be slumming to stampede the rubes towards you but you are scaring those elite superdelegates. Sorry for uttering that obscene five - letter adjective in polite company.

May 5, 2008 3:42 PM

virginiacentrist said:

I can't wait until the Hillary-McCain campaign! The media certainly won't be touring Ohio talking to mothers and asking them if they'd let their daughters intern in the White House!

May 5, 2008 3:52 PM

icarusr said:

Et tu, LR?

May 5, 2008 4:13 PM

psantillana said:

So either Bill Clinton is dumer'n I thought he was, or he's a bigger assh*le. Probably #2, although technically both could be true.

May 5, 2008 4:14 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Has Bill not figured out that casual lying no longer works in this day and age? I guess he can claim it was taken out of context, or wage his finger in someone's face, or just assume that everyone is too dumb to figure it out.

Between Bill and Hill's pervasive lying, Carville's constant discussions of nads, and the phoney shit kicking, beer guzzling nonsense, I can't figure out how Obama stomachs this bullshit. If he put a hard edge of his advertising, he could sink her in days.  

May 5, 2008 4:18 PM

liberal reformer said:

Icarusr: Could you contextualize your post? I think that you are one of the best bloggers on the TNR website and we seemed to be allies of a sort over on the Spine this weekend. So I am Brutus how?

May 5, 2008 4:21 PM

mpintar2 said:

Bill Clinton=jackass. I can almost hear the southern twang re-appear as he talkin' to his folks! I wonder if he uses that twang when on a private plane to Kazakhstan?

May 5, 2008 4:34 PM

blackton said:

LR, he means it in praise of you, that you are now somehow betraying the Clintons with your post (at least as they would consider it betrayal)

As I said before, Hillary had Obama on the ropes (at least Wright did) all Hillary had to do was NOTHING except run a standard campaign, but she changed the topic to an area where she is getting lambasted everywhere, and the notion that raising the prices at the wholesale end via taxes and taking it off on the retail end will equal any savings is ludicrous.

May 5, 2008 5:17 PM

liberal reformer said:

Thanks much blackton. I feel dense today. It is blindingly obvious now. I was thinking, I'm the one who expains the more esoteric cartoons in The New Yorker to friends and family - and sometimes, editorial cartoons as well - and I can't grasp this? BTW, I greatly enjoy your posts.

May 5, 2008 5:30 PM

icarusr said:

:)

Methinks HillBill may have created another Obamabot.  Welcome to the cult, LR.  Roi will teach you the secret handshake.  Expect PCC to blast your dastardly, sexist betrayal, but persevere.

May 5, 2008 5:58 PM

blackton said:

lr, yeah, thanks, and I was just teasing about the moniker bit myself, mine is even lamer than yours (hint, it is my not so secret identity)

May 5, 2008 7:15 PM

mmathog said:

I read that Lizza piece in the New Yorker and it was a real piece of shit... totally typical of elite values (and young Lizza knows the score). Lizza heaped scorn on Clinton for daring to use his own foundation to help regular suffering people.

Lizza's just continuing the conduct of the princely elite values that the MSM elite has become known for.

By the way, I'm a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool Obama supporter.

May 5, 2008 10:04 PM

psantillana said:

mmathog, I didn't see Lizza scorning Bill for helping people with a foundation, but more scorning Bill for talking about Bill when he was supposed to be campaigning for his wife.

But assuming you are correct, how is scorn for charitable foundations an elite value, as you put it?

May 6, 2008 12:16 AM

icarusr said:

Could someone please explain what are "elite values"?  Which "elite"?  Where?  What "values"?  When?  Who decides who are the elites?

May 6, 2008 11:32 AM

mmathog said:

"how is scorn for charitable foundations an elite value"

This happened most obviously to Gore, but it's part and parcel of the MSM 'beltway 500' (Dowd, Cohen, Rich, Seelye, etc...) always rolling their eyes with boredom when candidates and leaders dare to address real issues (trade, healthcare, etc...) saying how dull it all is and how this stuff 'doesn't matter.' The examples are endless.

They frequently jeer leaders (usually Dems) for actually going out and spending their time accomplishing something with their lives.

May 6, 2008 11:41 AM

mmathog said:

When I say 'elite values' wrt leading political journalists, I mean something rather specific. Keep in mind, the cohort I'm discussing are largely millionaires who work for huge corporations and are paid vast sums of cash:

1. Care WAY more about "style" over substance.

2. Bored with any discussion of substantive policy issues.

3. Are incapable of holding a reasonably informed conversation on any major issue.

4. All of them, every last mangy one of 'em (except Chris Matthews, who has his own problems), favor SS privatization, the Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy (and capital gains tax cuts), and opposes universal healthcare. They all coincidentally hold these views in spite of the fact that the majority of the public holds the opposite views on these four major issues.

I can type a quick list if you're interested.

May 6, 2008 1:46 PM

mcgumbleton said:

Did Bill really say "ain't"...?

May 7, 2008 10:50 PM