Top

news

Stories

 

The Clintons' Grim Fairy Tales

Shaving the truth with Bill and Hillary, all over again

Here was Bill Clinton up in New Hampshire, his hair now silver-gray, leaning comfortably against the lectern, microphone in hand, surrounded by rows of rapt students and framed against a giant blue banner for his wife's campaign. He wore a sports jacket without a tie and could have been an associate professor easing back into the job after semester break.

Here was Bill Clinton, still every bit The Natural, as an adoring media once dubbed him, still every bit the easy-going charmer with the manly swagger who once swayed a nation with that throaty growl, the saxophone-honking hipster who felt our pain. Here was Bill Clinton, a walking reminder of better times, of a surging economy, of a time before Enron, before Cheney, before war.

And then suddenly here was another Bill Clinton, this one also familiar. Now he was shaking his head and stabbing a finger at his audience. His raspy voice went up half an octave in indignation, the same way it did long ago when he angrily insisted there was nothing to the tale about himself and "that woman." This time he was denouncing the "biggest fairy tale" he'd ever seen. The fairy tale, he told the students as the cameras rolled, had been foisted on the public by a pliant press unwilling to take on Hillary Clinton's surging challenger, Barack Obama.

The ex-president gave the air a vicious slice with an open hand. "Give me a break!" he cried.

Forget Hillary Clinton's near-tears episode in the Portsmouth diner. Forget her sudden and belated discovery of her "own voice." The most illuminating Clintonian moment of the New Hampshire primary was Bill Clinton standing before dazed-looking students at Dartmouth , shaking his head in outrage and wagging that finger, insisting that his wife's opponent—a man who had openly condemned the war even before it started, and whose candidacy had sparked a wildfire of excitement among young people like those before him—was getting a free ride. The obvious message was that Barack Obama's entire campaign was a media-fueled fantasy.

"Let's go over this again," the exasperated visiting professor told the students. "That is the central argument for his campaign: 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure, and I am the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning, always, always, always.' "

That seemed to sum up his opinion on his wife's rival pretty clearly. But a day later, there was Bill Clinton calling in to Al Sharpton's radio show, insisting that he'd been misunderstood, that he hadn't meant to question Obama's presidential bid. "It's real and strong, and he might win," an apologetic-sounding Clinton said.

Listening to this furious backpedaling unleashed a flood of Clintonian memories, few of them pleasant—instances when the truth was conveniently shaved, when positions were suddenly reversed without explanation, when the lower, more expedient road was quietly taken. These are the Clinton memories that so many Democrats are trying so hard to repress as they look toward the future, dreaming of a liberated White House.

One such recollection is particularly fresh. The ex-president was stumping through Iowa for his wife in late November when he suddenly announced that he'd been against the Iraq War "from the beginning." This was nonsense, of course. "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it," he had said back in 2002 as war loomed. In 2003, he said with apparent pride: "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

As reporters searched out these old quotes, Clinton's aides hastened to explain that the ex-president had been forced to keep his true feelings to himself at the time because of his standing as a former commander in chief.

And yet, back then, Clinton's former vice president, Al Gore, had no such qualms about speaking his mind: Stay focused on Al Qaeda, Gore warned in the fall of 2002 as Bush and Cheney taunted Democrats in Congress, daring them to vote against their war. "Do not jump from one unfinished task to another," he said. Bush had said nothing about his plans after the invasion, Gore noted. For Gore, a former hawk, it was thoughtful stuff, reasoning that we now know to have been prophetic.

Presumably, even an ex-president's discretion would not have prevented Bill Clinton from advising Hillary Clinton as she made her own decision. Whatever he told her, she nevertheless voted with the majority to authorize the war. It was the most critical vote she ever cast, Hillary has acknowledged. And yet, as New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. reported in their book, Her Way, she never got around to reading the classified National Intelligence Estimate. Former Florida Senator Bob Graham read the 90-page document and urged his colleagues to do likewise, saying it raised big questions for him as to whether the administration even knew what it was talking about regarding events inside Iraq. Graham voted against the war.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • pork 01/27/2008 10:02:00 AM

    did i miss something? is bill clinton running for president? or is it his wife? this entire article is about bill. he said if you voted for him you'd get two for one. she didn't. i'm sad to see the same old sexist assumptions coming from tom robbins and the voice. what has she said or done to make anyone think that she would be letting bill run the show? on the contrary, i think she has made it very clear that she is her own person and while she might take her husband's opinion into consideration, she also would listen to many others advice and then make her own decisions. the assumption that her presidency would be just another clinton completely diminishes her individual accomplishments and is blatantly sexist. i don't think most hillary haters even realize how sexist they are being but that doesn't make it less so. the fact that this article is basically about bill is further proof. i'm not even a hillary fan. she's way too conservative for me. but i cannot sit by and watch her being attacked for simply being a woman however indirectly. just because someone doesn't come right out and say i won't vote for her because she's a woman doesn't mean they're not being sexist. when they criticize her for being too cold or too ambitious, that is sexism. for those would never be criticisms aimed at men. she is far from perfect. there are enough legitimate reasons to disagree with her. but those are not the things i see people attacking. i've never heard her try to take credit for anything that her husband did as president (although i can't think of anything he did that she would want to take credit for - i'm far from a bill fan either). but people insist on trying to blame her for his mistakes. this again is sexism. as if a wife is incapable of existing as a separate being. it may be unconscious on mr. robbins and others part but it still doesn't make it right.

  • serena1313 01/26/2008 6:05:00 AM

    Daily more and more -- according to the comments posted on the web -- individuals, who had either voted for former President Clinton and/or were planning on voting for Hillary, are changing their minds once the Clintons started attacking & distorting Obama's record. If they had attacked the opposition party that would be one thing, however, the Clintons were not lobbing attacks at the republicans, instead they were lobbing attacks against one of the democratic members. Consequently Hillary has alienated many African-American, democratic and independent voters -- crucial for winning the national election. That translates into her having to overcome if not impossible certainly unfavourable odds. Insofar as the national election many more say they will not vote at all if Hillary wins the democratic nomination. A handful of others assert they will vote for McCain! Others question Obama's ability to handle the ferocious republican attacks if he cannot withstand the Clintons mud-slinging. Therein his abilities are not the problem. The problem is that a majority of democrats [and independents] do not like the rovian-tactics the Clintons are using against her opponent within the democratic party. The Clintons -- presumably not intentionally -- remind us of how contentious and divided the nation became while Bill was President. Mostly because of what the country has gone through the past decade or more, including Bill's 8-year tenure as President and Bush's 7 soon to be 8-years, voters are not keen on the idea of another 4 to 8 more years of that. We are ready for a fresh change. That would be Obama. IMHO.

  • lp 01/26/2008 1:32:00 AM

    This whole primary season has been a journey through bizarro world. I feel like Bill and Hillary are running for Mom and Dad of the nation. I am already so sick of both of them � and I�m a devoted Democrat. My bet is that by the summer the rest of the nation will start to suffer from severe Clinton fatigue; and what was once a promising election season will see Democratic party officials scrambling to save Senate and Congressional races across the country. This couple cannot help themselves. They�re like the nosy obnoxious next door neighbors that you go out of your way to dodge. if we didn�t live in such disturbing times it would be soooo funny. But I only seem to be shedding tears

  • Thomas Chacko 01/25/2008 10:22:00 PM

    Ah, here we are again -- the evil Clintons picking on poor, innocent Barack! As the former president rightfully said, "Give me a break!" What nerve, he not only disagrees with Obama, he's also supporting his wife's campaign! Obama is not yet used to being seriously challenged. He waltzed into his Senate seat, as anybody could, with Alan Keyes as an opponent! He did not take the lead on any serious Senate legislation, being busy preparing his presidential campaign in between chats with David Letterman. He certainly cannot match Hillary Clinton or John Kerry in the amount of campaigning they did for other Democrats. As for his opposing the war from the beginning ... well, so did I, but neither of us was in the Senate! If he becomes the nominee, what will he do when the GOP rips into him -- cry on Oprah's shoulder? I'm amazed, too, that the VOICE would lend credence to Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, two snake-oil salesmen whose employment with the New York Times grants them some ill-fitting legitimacy. These are the same two who foisted Whitewater on us, a front-page scam that even anti-Clinton commentators in Arkansas said was laden with falsehoods! Their main sources were: a manic- depressive hustler who instigated the whole scheme; a former judge who went to jail for fraud; an oil/gas millionaire who had his butt kicked by Clinton in his last gubernatorial campaign; and a former Rhodes Scholar who has spent his miserable life envying Clinton's success. But, if it supports the VOICE's overall view of the Clintons, why not?

 

Most Popular Stories


Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy