Carl Remick wrote:
> Bill's "very powerful gaze" surely equips him for a major role in a raunchy
> comedy targeted to teen moviegoers, but his mojo doesn't seem to work very
> well where anything other than a good grope -- or sheer self-preservation --
> is the goal. What was that expression of helpless petulance he offered when
> Bob Rubin told him him some policy initiative was a non-starter because if
> would offend the bond market -- something along the lines of, "How did we
> all become Eisenhower Republicans?" Plus, Clinton collapsed totally on his
> one significant progressive proposal, national healthcare. There is no
> emptier suit than the one Bill Clinton is wearing.
If you measure presidents by their success in achieving their conscious goals, then Clinton is one of the brighter, more competent presidents of the last 100 years. Carl's personal bad mouthing of Clinton adds up to a defense both of capitalism (*as* a system) and of the Democratic Party. Clinton's health plan almost certainly was a complete success in achieving its core goals: (a) of maintaining the attachment of naive liberals to the Democratic party and (b) delivering the health care system over to the insurance companies. It is absurd to see that episode as a "collapse" on Clinton's part. It was a huge victory -- and one that the u.s. working class will be paying for for decades.
It is really a serious mistake to conceive of one's enemy as weak or stupid. Eisenhower is on record as saying of one presidential policy that if it drew too much flak he would dumb it up at a press conference and keep everyone confused. Murray Kempton noted long ago that someone without brains did not flourish financially as an officer and bridge player.
And Clinton is a man of enormous courage. It appears as soon as you give up the childish notion that he wasn't aiming at the effects his policies achieved.
Carrol
Carrol