2 November 2009 >> From an e-mail that’s been circulating recently, the Joke of the Day:

Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama go to heaven.

God addresses Gore first. “Al, what do you believe in?”

Gore replies: “Well, I believe that I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. And I’ve come to understand that now.”

God thinks for a second and says: “Very good. Come and sit at my left.”

God then addresses Clinton. “Bill, what do you believe in?”

Clinton replies: “I believe in forgiveness. I’ve sinned, but I’ve never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me.”

God thinks for a second and says: “You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right.”

Then God addresses Obama. “Barack, what do you believe in?”

Obama replies...

“I believe you’re in my chair.”

4 June 2008 >> The psychology of Bill Clinton as portrayed in the recent Vanity Fair piece “The Comeback Id” (you know, the article that caused the former president to refer to its author as a “sleazy,” “slimy” “scumbag”), reminded me of how I described my perception of the man in “The Shallowness of Clinton.”

I wrote that piece in the spring of 2002, back when Bill Clinton was still a darling of devoted Democrats and the establishment media.

It’s a bit reassuring that so many of his former blind followers finally see him the way I always have.

But still, one thing bothers me...

Did all these folks really not notice the real Clinton? For eight years? Or did they just not care because he had the “right” political enemies?

Bill Clinton was a pretty good con-man, so maybe I should go a little easy on all you former patsies out there.

You’re a little late to reality, but we’ll welcome you anyway.

12 February 2008 >> A Clinton-related conspiracy theory:

It isn’t all that hard to believe that a guy who’s alpha [male] enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern might subconsciously sabotage his wife’s ascent to power, is it?

Radley Balko, from “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?â€?

21 June 2006 @ 5:57PM >> Last week, I posted some e-mails received in response to “Why Do They Hate Us?” Although those e-mails took issue with my article, it’s always refreshing to read an argument that is literate and informed, even if it is tinged with bit of condescension.

Unfortunately, most of the arguments that end up in my inbox don’t quite live up to that standard. Case in point, this note from an Australian e-mail account listed only as “LDupont2”:

Dear Mr. Coyne,

I read your article on Why do They hate us? and would wish to point out to you that they hate us because we are hypocrisy. The rest of the World used to look to the United States for leadership. I remember during Clinton leadership that yes I would gladly acquiesce to America being the leader of the free world Clinton was so statuesque so intelligent, so charismatic then he leaves office and what do you present me with a Bush cabal of mental midgets. Sadam as you know had no WMD yet our troops are locked in a battle to the death with the Iraqis and the Iranians are licking their lips. They hate us because we can no longer command their respect. Our soldiers like the Jews bomb people’s houses murder innocent women and children. They hate us because despite our 500lbs bombs we couldn’t even kill Zawquari. He lived long enough to embrace death and his martydom 52 minutes and the cause of his actual demise is arbituary

Thanks for that healthy round of hearty guffaws.

The fact that the United States was so respected during the Clinton Administration must explain all these terrorist attacks that didn’t happen during his presidency.

31 January 2006 >> The one story that can unite conspiracy theorists on the right and the left.

24 June 2005 @ 5:52PM >> A press release from World Ahead Publishing—a publisher of conservative and libertarian books—charges that Google banned an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton:

Popular search engine Google reversed course late last week and banned a previously approved online ad campaign for a new book that documents abuses of power by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The surprise move prompted the book’s author and publishing house to publicly question if the politics of Google’s CEO - a financial backer of Hillary Clinton - played a role in this change of course.

“Google’s decision to reverse its prior approval and shut down this banner ad campaign reeks of political bias,” charges [author] Candice E. Jackson. [...]

The controversy comes at a time when the search engine giant is facing increasing scrutiny for claims of editorial unfairness by conservative organizations. Last month RightMarch.com, a conservative activist group, went public with claims that Google was rejecting its ads targeting House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi while at the same time running identical ads attacking Republican Leader Tom DeLay.

Representatives for Google - whose corporate motto is “don’t be evil” - attempted to defend the surprise ban on the book’s ads by claiming their policies prohibit ads that are against an individual. But while the ads for the book - which featured images of the book’s cover and pictures of the former First Couple - were suddenly deemed too offensive, Google happily accepts advertisements with headlines such as “Hate Bush? So Do We,” “Bush Belongs Behind Bars,” and “George W. Bush Fart Doll.”

Early last month, a similar controversy erupted when Google accepted ads targeting Republican Congressman Tom DeLay while rejecting similar ads targeting Democratic Congressman Nancy Pelosi. On May 9th, WorldNetDaily reported:

Google, the Internet’s No. 1 search engine, is still running attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, despite assurances by the company’s spokesman they were all pulled last week.

The issue of the anti-DeLay ads came to light when a conservative activist group discovered the ads and designed a similar campaign, using the same verbiage, targeting House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

When the anti-Pelosi ads were rejected by Google, RightMarch.com protested what it saw as political bias in Google’s content.

When questioned about the apparent double-standard by WND, Mike Mayzel, spokesman for Google, said both the anti-Pelosi ad and the anti-DeLay ad were pulled.

“Both ads were taken down,” he told WND. “Any assertion to the contrary is false. As soon as an ad is reviewed and found to be in violation of our policies, we take it down as soon as possible. Any suggestion we would leave some ads up longer than others for reasons of political bias is false.”

However, a search of Google’s site yesterday shows at least three more anti-DeLay ads still running[.]

As of this writing nearly two months later, anti-Tom DeLay ads are still running, despite Google’s assurances that they wouldn’t be. However, one anti-Nancy Pelosi ad is also running, which makes me wonder whether the problem is one of corporate political bias or simply one of bias—or incompetence—on the part of individual staffers who administer the ad approval process. Google may have dozens of employees who approve these ads, which could explain the inconsistent application of its policy.

Whatever the explanation, this kind of information doesn’t exactly help Google’s case:

A WorldNetDaily search of Google executive and employee political contributions filed with the Federal Election Commission showed nearly 99 percent of its $469,500 went to Democrats over the last three election cycles.

As a private company, Google is fully within its rights to accept or reject any ad it sees fit. However, if these charges are true, then the public should at least be aware of the fact that Google is making political calculations in the selective application of its ad policy. Google would also be wise to tighten up the application of this policy; the appearance of bias for a company that aspires to be the world’s gateway to the Internet would be devastating.

18 March 2005 >> In response to this story, a friend e-mails:

Why is it OK for Bill Clinton to commit perjury under oath but not Lil’ Kim? Is it because she’s a sistah?

Maybe that, and the fact she didn’t have the entire political establishment of one party working to excuse her perjury...

14 December 2004 @ 7:49PM >> The New York Post is reporting that Marc Rich, the billionaire financier who was awarded a “midnight pardon” in one of President Clinton’s last acts in office, is “a central figure” in the U.N. Oil-for-Food corruption scandal:

Billionaire Marc Rich has emerged as a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and is under investigation for brokering deals in which scores of international politicians and businessmen cashed in on sweetheart oil deals with Saddam Hussein, The Post has learned.

Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, sources said.

“We think he was a major player in this — a central figure,” a senior law-enforcement official told The Post.

[...]

Investigators say they have received information that Rich and Ben Pollner, a New York-based oil trader who heads Taurus Oil, set up a series of companies in Liechtenstein and other countries that they used to put together deals between Saddam and his international supporters in the controversial oil-voucher scheme — which the dictator designed to win international support against U.S. sanctions at the United Nations.

Under the scam, hundreds of international political and financial figures from France, Russia and other countries were awarded middleman vouchers allowing them to purchase set quantities of Iraqi oil at discount rates.

[...]

Investigators now believe Rich and Pollner brokered many of the deals by finding buyers for the oil allocated to people who were bribed by Saddam. The discount Iraqi oil would be resold to major oil companies at higher prices and Rich and Pollner would pocket percentages of the profits, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, sources said.

[...]

In January 2001, in the final hours his presidency, Clinton bypassed law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to wipe the books clean for Rich after being subjected to intense lobbying from former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Rich’s jet-setting ex-wife, Denise, who donated more than $1 million to Democratic campaigns — including Sen. Hillary Rodham’s first Senate race — along with an additional $450,000 to Clinton’s library fund.

Interesting.

22 November 2004 @ 4:38PM >> The New York Sun reports: “President Clinton’s new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen. The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week.”

Let’s see how long it takes Michael Moore to denounce President Clinton’s ties to the Saudi Royal Family.

14 October 2004 >> I won’t be scoring this debate on the merits of the points made by each candidate, because in both cases, their message was reflected in—and sometimes hindered by—their presentation. Because there was nothing terribly new or controversial said, people will mostly remember their visceral reactions to each candidate’s style.

How you felt about tonight’s debate probably depends on how much of it you watched. The earlier you turned it off, the more likely you are to feel that Kerry won.

Although President Bush had some good moments in the first half of the debate, his disjointed diction sometimes made him seem distracted. Kerry seemed more morbid than usual, and I’m not sure if that had to do with his appearance or his delivery; both conspired against him. But Kerry seemed confident in the first half of the debate, and there were times that it contrasted favorably with the answers where Bush fumbled verbally. Still, Kerry’s dour pessimism drips from his face as he rattles off everything wrong with the world today and how it’s all President Bush’s fault. I think that works against him. I’d score the first half of the debate a small Kerry win.

Somewhere right around the 45 minute mark, the momentum shifted. Bush seemed more comfortable. He got engaged, he got fired up, and all of a sudden there was a stark contrast with Kerry. As the debate wore on, Kerry’s dry delivery of complaint-laden answers that invariably ended with focus-grouped, committee-written soundbites just seemed phony. He didn’t sound genuine. President Bush did.

President Bush’s statements were backed by passion. Kerry seemed like he treats every moment in life with the same amount of energy as when reading a budget reconciliation memorandum. When you’re a politician who’s viewed by many to be a flip-flopping political opportunist, you damn well better be able to muster up a little passion to spackle over it. President Clinton could do it. Senator Kerry, you’re no Bill Clinton.

So, if you tuned out at the halfway point, you might say Kerry prevailed. But when President Bush came on strong, Kerry seemed to lose confidence. The longer you watched, the worse Kerry looked by comparison. Maybe if Kerry had the stage to himself, his performance would have been fine. But he sounded like a prototypical political issuing slogans and he shared the stage with a man who said what he believed and spoke from the heart. (The best example of this contrast was the last question of the night.) President Bush sounded genuine. That contrast was not helpful to Senator Kerry.

12 October 2004 >> A new video is making the rounds that gives a rather exhaustive account of President Clinton’s statements on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program and the threat posed by Iraq. Check out The Terror War: Chapter 3, especially if you’re one of the Bush Lied!!! folks.

It remains to be seen whether our intelligence was faulty, as it now appears. Then again, given September 11th, nobody should have been under the impression that our intelligence operation was perfect. The fact remains that every major intelligence service in the world—including those of France, Germany and Russia—believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Saddam’s own military believed they had WMD.

So when you hear Clinton sounding like George W. Bush, it’s hard to take seriously the conspiracy theorists who talk of oil, Halliburton or “the president’s daddy”. Not that it was easy to take them seriously before.

9 July 2004 >> Not everyone attending a Bill Clinton book signing is necessarily a rabid Clinton supporter. I found this out when I received an e-mail from Ed Dvir, one of the folks I interviewed during Clinton’s recent book signing in lower Manhattan.

Ed, the gentleman in the brown hat who speaks of skipping to the juicy parts of Clinton’s autobiography “like a romance novel”, is not a fan of Clinton. He was actually there to get a signature and sell the autographed book on Ebay, which he did to the tune of $620. Not bad!

Although the video itself did not characterize the people standing in line as supporters of Bill, the old introductory text to the video did. Understandably, Ed objected to being lumped in with the Clinton worshippers, so I’ve changed the text describing the video.

My apologies to you, Ed. I can only imagine the severe stain on one’s reputation by being erroneously labeled a fan of Clinton!

29 June 2004 >> Bill Clinton’s latest attempt to define his legacy is a 957-page book called My Life. Though panned by the New York Times as “sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull,” thousands of people still stood on line for eight hours or more to have the former president sign their copies. As the line snaked around the corner of Broadway and Wall Street in lower Manhattan, I asked the autograph-seekers for their thoughts on Bill, his book, and his legacy. Video >>

20 June 2004 @ 4:59PM >> First, his autobiography gets panned by The New York Times:

As his celebrated 1993 speech in Memphis to the Church of God in Christ demonstrated, former President Bill Clinton is capable of soaring eloquence and visionary thinking. But as those who heard his deadening speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta well know, he is also capable of numbing, self-conscious garrulity.

Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton’s much awaited new autobiography “My Life” more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words “In closing...”

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull—the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

Yikes. One would certainly expect a New York Times reviewer to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, especially one who finds much to praise about Clinton and his presidency—so maybe the book really is this bad. (Of course, that may depend on the precise meaning of “is.”)

It gets worse for poor Bubba. Apparently, he lost his cool during a yet-to-be-aired BBC interview:

The former American president, famed for his amiable disposition, becomes visibly angry and rattled, particularly when Dimbleby asks him whether his publicly declared contrition over the [Monica Lewinsky] affair is genuine.

“As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained,” said one BBC executive who viewed the interview footage. “It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President’s character.”

5 November 2003 >> Howard Dean says he wants to be candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. Is this his Sister Souljah moment, and does it signal a larger “southern strategy” for Dean? More >>

4 May 2003 >> Hollywood free-speech advocates shut down website critical of Hollywood free-speech advocates / U.N. worries over looting in Baghdad, then does a little looting of its own / The tip of the iceberg? Iraqi documents discovered in Baghdad reveal al Qaeda ties, more evidence of the French selling us out to Saddam Hussein, and that a prominent anti-war British MP was apparently taking bribes from Saddam’s regime / 7 steps to stable, long-term freedom for Iraq / Slim Shady Saddam / Blair, Bush, Clinton in bizarre love triangle / Why it’s not possible to target more tax cuts towards lower incomes More >>

11 April 2003 >> “It took three weeks for the media to declare the Afghan war to a quagmire, but it took them only a week to make the same proclamation about the Iraq war. Although the media can’t claim credit for accuracy, they at least deserve a pat on the back for increasing the speed at which they’re wrong by a whopping 200%.” More >>

27 March 2002 >> “Bill Clinton is a low-life thief, a petty swindler, and a smooth-talking scam artist more suited for Tammany Hall than the White House. He’s shallow because he was given remarkable gifts and the opportunity to do great things with them, yet he achieved nothing substantial. In the end, his presidency amounted to little more than talk and corruption. The man who spent the final days of his presidency fretting about his legacy will find it to be recorded quite accurately by history: Bill Clinton is a shallow, failed man.” More >>

19 March 2002 >> A reader responds to “Six Months Later: Have We Forgotten Already?” More >>