>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.
His "one significant progressive proposal" was a disaster from the start. But behind this you seem to assume that there's a wimpy "progressive" frustrated by the realities of power. I see Clinton as a very effective and loyal servant of the big bourgeoisie. He's been working since the early 1980s to purge the Dems of their civil rights/social democratic strains, and replace them with the bond market and free trade. It's been very successful. How does that make him an empty suit?
Doug