Post by stetto on Aug 30, 2004 4:39:04 GMT -7
[glow=red,2,300]Master of the Game[/glow]
Bill Clinton sounds off on the current state of politics
By WILL DANA, Rolling Stone
In the weeks since the publication of his memoir, My Life, Bill Clinton has been probably the most visible former president in history. He has signed thousands of copies of the book and has done countless TV, radio and print interviews, once again selling himself to the public with the same tireless energy, calculation and charm he first showed in 1992, when he came out of nowhere to capture the White House.
Not simply an account of his years in office, My Life is Clinton's attempt to force history to see him the same way he sees himself. "We don't see people three-dimensionally until they've been dead for decades," Clinton says. "I needed to let people in enough to see my three- dimensional life: what was bad about it, what was good about it; what I liked, what I didn't like; what my flaws and strengths were like as a human being."
Rolling Stone caught up with Clinton in Washington, D.C., in the living room of the stately house just off Embassy Row that his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, uses as her D.C. headquarters. It was the end of a day of relentless plugging -- he'd appeared on a D.C. public-radio talk show that morning, then hit a nearby bookstore to sign copies of My Life for more than three hours. He seemed to be tired, but at the same time, he was relaxed, attentive and expansive. We began the interview with the big news of the day -- Sen. John Kerry's announcement that North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would be his running mate.
Did Kerry make the right choice?
My judgment is, it's a good decision. I sort of always thought it would come back to Edwards. Because he ran in the primary campaign, his electability -- his appeal to Democrats -- was vetted. And there was evidence that a lot of independents liked him: liked his style, liked his manner, liked the way he talked, liked his background. He's clearly a skilled campaigner, and he'll be effective in the vice-presidential debate. He can make the case for our side, and he'll have appeal in places like Arkansas.
What does Edwards bring to the ticket?
If you assume that we carry every place we won last time, we win. But you can't assume that, because President Bush has been to Pennsylvania twenty-five times or something. And you have to figure Kerry will win New Hampshire. But with the reapportionment, it's not enough. So he has to get one more state. And Edwards gives him a legitimate chance to carry North Carolina.
But wasn't there a question that Edwards could even get re-elected in North Carolina?
But his numbers got better and better there as he ran in the primaries. Edwards also probably helps a little bit in Nevada -- a lot of Southerners have migrated out there. What happens in Arizona depends on how people read the Sen. John McCain-going-back-to-Bush deal. And I think Edwards will help Kerry in Missouri; I think Edwards will help him in southern Ohio. And I think Ohio's our best chance for a big-state pickup. And Edwards will almost certainly help him in north Florida -- and in south Florida, Kerry can do quite well on his own. So I think it's, you know, a good choice on the merits; a good choice on the politics.
Do you have a hand in the Kerry campaign?
I wouldn't say I had my hand in the campaign. I don't think that's appropriate. But, of course, Mary Beth Cahill, his campaign manager, was a special assistant to me in the White House. And, of course, most important, I know Kerry quite well. I spent quite a bit of time with him over the years when I was president. Mostly in the summertime, when I'd go out and spend the day with him on his [family's] island, near Martha's Vineyard.
I talked to him about [choosing a running mate] two or three times, but I never expressed a preference. I only gave him my opinion about the various candidates if he asked. I gave him what may seem to be naive, but I'm quite sure is accurate, advice. I said, "What you should do is pick someone that you feel good about, a person you believe would be a good president if lightning strikes. And if you feel that, then it will show in your body language, and people will see you're proud of it."
If you think about it, a candidate for president only gets one presidential decision -- your nominee. The rest of your campaign is words -- and where you deploy them, in what states, and how you deploy them. You know, either in the free press or the paid media. But it's words, except for this. This is his decision.
One thing from Kerry's speech this morning that struck me is that he is really dealing with the issue of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- making the case that oil isn't just an environmental issue anymore but is also a security issue. It's refreshing to hear a presidential candidate making alternative energy a top-line issue, but is it one that will move voters?
Absolutely. Particularly if it's a comprehensive message. If you look at Kerry's campaign, he's running on four main points. A general economic message, which is: We have to bring the deficit down and repeal the upper-income tax cuts. A health-care message, which is a combination of stopping this drastic inflation in premium costs and extending health insurance to people who don't have it. He's got the energy message and a security message for America and the world, which is to cooperate whenever we can and act alone only when we have to.
What's important is that the energy component really bleeds into all the others.
That's right. No president in the future should ever have his foreign policy in the Middle East dictated primarily by oil. Our foreign policy in the Middle East ought to be dictated toward our security interests; in minimizing terror and bringing the Middle East -- and the Muslim world, generally -- back into the mainstream of global life.
The second thing is, we're the worst offender in global warming. This administration has withdrawn from the Kyoto treaty. And I believe it's important that we become a leader again in the environment in the world.
And the third reason is, I believe that for a Democratic administration to be successful, we have to be promoting broader economic opportunity. Which means we need to figure out: Where are the jobs going to come from in this decade that are the equivalent of all the high-tech jobs in the Nineties? There is today approximately a $1 trillion potential market out there for already existing technologies, in clean-energy and in the energy-conservation technologies, and it has the potential to grow exponentially. We simply haven't put our minds to it.
Why not? It seems surprising that in such an efficiently organized, capitalist economy we are leaving so much money on the table.
We have held onto the old energy economy, because it was well-organized, well-financed and well-connected politically. And because most people are still in the grip of an idea that is no longer accurate -- which is that in order for a country to get rich, stay rich and grow richer, it has to put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That was true in the industrial era. It is simply not true now.
We could actually generate more jobs, more income, higher productivity with greater energy efficiency, in a rather dramatic shift to clean, renewable energy.
What are your criticisms of the Kerry campaign?
I think he's doing well. And the number-one thing that people have complained about before today, when he's making big news, is, you know, they say he's not saying something to get on the news every night. I think that's a good strategy. For the simple reason that, first, he's got a lot of groundwork to lay. A couple of weeks ago, he gave a whole series of serious speeches on national security. They were thoughtful; they were good; they were solid. And the kind of people that read them are the ones who are going to be writing editorials in October.
If John Kerry were saying things that got him on the evening news every night, he'd probably have to say things that would run the risk of his losing the election.
Bill Clinton sounds off on the current state of politics
By WILL DANA, Rolling Stone
In the weeks since the publication of his memoir, My Life, Bill Clinton has been probably the most visible former president in history. He has signed thousands of copies of the book and has done countless TV, radio and print interviews, once again selling himself to the public with the same tireless energy, calculation and charm he first showed in 1992, when he came out of nowhere to capture the White House.
Not simply an account of his years in office, My Life is Clinton's attempt to force history to see him the same way he sees himself. "We don't see people three-dimensionally until they've been dead for decades," Clinton says. "I needed to let people in enough to see my three- dimensional life: what was bad about it, what was good about it; what I liked, what I didn't like; what my flaws and strengths were like as a human being."
Rolling Stone caught up with Clinton in Washington, D.C., in the living room of the stately house just off Embassy Row that his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, uses as her D.C. headquarters. It was the end of a day of relentless plugging -- he'd appeared on a D.C. public-radio talk show that morning, then hit a nearby bookstore to sign copies of My Life for more than three hours. He seemed to be tired, but at the same time, he was relaxed, attentive and expansive. We began the interview with the big news of the day -- Sen. John Kerry's announcement that North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would be his running mate.
Did Kerry make the right choice?
My judgment is, it's a good decision. I sort of always thought it would come back to Edwards. Because he ran in the primary campaign, his electability -- his appeal to Democrats -- was vetted. And there was evidence that a lot of independents liked him: liked his style, liked his manner, liked the way he talked, liked his background. He's clearly a skilled campaigner, and he'll be effective in the vice-presidential debate. He can make the case for our side, and he'll have appeal in places like Arkansas.
What does Edwards bring to the ticket?
If you assume that we carry every place we won last time, we win. But you can't assume that, because President Bush has been to Pennsylvania twenty-five times or something. And you have to figure Kerry will win New Hampshire. But with the reapportionment, it's not enough. So he has to get one more state. And Edwards gives him a legitimate chance to carry North Carolina.
But wasn't there a question that Edwards could even get re-elected in North Carolina?
But his numbers got better and better there as he ran in the primaries. Edwards also probably helps a little bit in Nevada -- a lot of Southerners have migrated out there. What happens in Arizona depends on how people read the Sen. John McCain-going-back-to-Bush deal. And I think Edwards will help Kerry in Missouri; I think Edwards will help him in southern Ohio. And I think Ohio's our best chance for a big-state pickup. And Edwards will almost certainly help him in north Florida -- and in south Florida, Kerry can do quite well on his own. So I think it's, you know, a good choice on the merits; a good choice on the politics.
Do you have a hand in the Kerry campaign?
I wouldn't say I had my hand in the campaign. I don't think that's appropriate. But, of course, Mary Beth Cahill, his campaign manager, was a special assistant to me in the White House. And, of course, most important, I know Kerry quite well. I spent quite a bit of time with him over the years when I was president. Mostly in the summertime, when I'd go out and spend the day with him on his [family's] island, near Martha's Vineyard.
I talked to him about [choosing a running mate] two or three times, but I never expressed a preference. I only gave him my opinion about the various candidates if he asked. I gave him what may seem to be naive, but I'm quite sure is accurate, advice. I said, "What you should do is pick someone that you feel good about, a person you believe would be a good president if lightning strikes. And if you feel that, then it will show in your body language, and people will see you're proud of it."
If you think about it, a candidate for president only gets one presidential decision -- your nominee. The rest of your campaign is words -- and where you deploy them, in what states, and how you deploy them. You know, either in the free press or the paid media. But it's words, except for this. This is his decision.
One thing from Kerry's speech this morning that struck me is that he is really dealing with the issue of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- making the case that oil isn't just an environmental issue anymore but is also a security issue. It's refreshing to hear a presidential candidate making alternative energy a top-line issue, but is it one that will move voters?
Absolutely. Particularly if it's a comprehensive message. If you look at Kerry's campaign, he's running on four main points. A general economic message, which is: We have to bring the deficit down and repeal the upper-income tax cuts. A health-care message, which is a combination of stopping this drastic inflation in premium costs and extending health insurance to people who don't have it. He's got the energy message and a security message for America and the world, which is to cooperate whenever we can and act alone only when we have to.
What's important is that the energy component really bleeds into all the others.
That's right. No president in the future should ever have his foreign policy in the Middle East dictated primarily by oil. Our foreign policy in the Middle East ought to be dictated toward our security interests; in minimizing terror and bringing the Middle East -- and the Muslim world, generally -- back into the mainstream of global life.
The second thing is, we're the worst offender in global warming. This administration has withdrawn from the Kyoto treaty. And I believe it's important that we become a leader again in the environment in the world.
And the third reason is, I believe that for a Democratic administration to be successful, we have to be promoting broader economic opportunity. Which means we need to figure out: Where are the jobs going to come from in this decade that are the equivalent of all the high-tech jobs in the Nineties? There is today approximately a $1 trillion potential market out there for already existing technologies, in clean-energy and in the energy-conservation technologies, and it has the potential to grow exponentially. We simply haven't put our minds to it.
Why not? It seems surprising that in such an efficiently organized, capitalist economy we are leaving so much money on the table.
We have held onto the old energy economy, because it was well-organized, well-financed and well-connected politically. And because most people are still in the grip of an idea that is no longer accurate -- which is that in order for a country to get rich, stay rich and grow richer, it has to put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That was true in the industrial era. It is simply not true now.
We could actually generate more jobs, more income, higher productivity with greater energy efficiency, in a rather dramatic shift to clean, renewable energy.
What are your criticisms of the Kerry campaign?
I think he's doing well. And the number-one thing that people have complained about before today, when he's making big news, is, you know, they say he's not saying something to get on the news every night. I think that's a good strategy. For the simple reason that, first, he's got a lot of groundwork to lay. A couple of weeks ago, he gave a whole series of serious speeches on national security. They were thoughtful; they were good; they were solid. And the kind of people that read them are the ones who are going to be writing editorials in October.
If John Kerry were saying things that got him on the evening news every night, he'd probably have to say things that would run the risk of his losing the election.
) here. From all the media sources I've read and watched he is still in charge of the Democrat party...That must count for something, eh?
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing BJ Clinton could ever say or do would be of ANY interest to me... not even die, because then we'd have to drive around watching our flag hung at half mast for thirty days and listen to more bovine excretement about "What a great man he was!!" JohnC