Clinton-Hatred in Its Doldrums

David Weigel | October 3, 2007

Two of the biggest magazines of the right have prominent anti-Clinton content up today: Great examples, I think, of how Clinton hatred has vaporized as a political or satirical force and slow how the institutional right has been picking this up. First we've got George H. Wittman's American Spectator column on the Clinton Global Initiative.

Clinton Global Initiative is a pretentiously named mechanism...

"Clinton Global Initiative" is a pretentious name? Under what definition of "pretentious"? A pretentious name would be "Clinton: An Initiative," or maybe simply "BJC."

Other than having a keen desire to avoid military service in Vietnam, and a penchant during his year in Oxford, England for the town's pubs, Bill Clinton showed no previous interest in world affairs until becoming president.

But this is just calumny. Clinton obviously has some interest in world affairs after eight years in the White House, right? Shouldn't he?

Ms. Jolie usually doesn't need to go to these do's with her muscular mate, but this was, after all, a William Jefferson Clinton occasion and even though the beauteous and bright Ms. Jolie can karate kick quite well, the Clinton reputation for aggressive action with the opposite sex could not be ignored.

And so on. Meanwhile, National Review is raising money in a "Help Us Stop Hillary!" telethon. No engagement with the Democratic frontrunner's campaign, no attempt to understand the popularity comeback of her and her husband: Just a lot of nostalgiac outrage.

Comments

|10.3.07 @ 9:57AM|#

The only thing a return to Clinton-bashing from the usual suspects is going to accomplish is to make people nostalgic for the nineties.

|10.3.07 @ 10:04AM|#

I was just thinking that this country needs more irrational personal hatred of our elected leaders.

|10.3.07 @ 10:14AM|#

I sometimes wish GWB had never taken an interest in world affairs. By the way, let's not bring Oxford's pubs into this. One could spend a happy life in them.

x,y|10.3.07 @ 10:40AM|#

The only thing a return to Clinton-bashing from the usual suspects is going to accomplish is to make people nostalgic for the nineties.

To be fair, it will certainly rile some of my close friends and relatives into a Clinton-hating frezy. But these are the same folks who support GWB and the GWOT.

And it might make people nostalgic for the 90s economy*. An unfortunate byproduct of this would be helping Hillary get elected -- which will do little to helping us restore the 90s economy.

*Which itself was not sustainable, but a bubble.

|10.3.07 @ 10:40AM|#

I don't know. I guess there's a point or two in there. But it looks like Dave is back to shilling for the Ds again.

|10.3.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Speaking as a former sufferer of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I can attest that most people have, er, moved on.

I still dislike her, but that has more to do with her harmful policies than anything personal. I have come around somewhat on Bill. He and a Republican congress weren't a bad match. Yes, he wanted to disarm me and yes, I hated all of his rhetoric and yes, he was a spineless watcher of polls, but if we look only at what he was actually able to do, it wasn't too bad.

|10.3.07 @ 11:23AM|#

I think rabid attacks on Clinton, particularly misogynist ones, will only serve to make people more symapthetic to her. Look how far Clinton Hate(tm) got with her husband in the 90s. Clinton Hate 2010s edition will probably have similar results.

|10.3.07 @ 11:30AM|#

I dunno. I think she just plain scares some people. And rightfully so. Think about it: she wants to nationalize one-seventh of the nation's economy. That's like having the government take over every single activity in the state of California, public, private, and in between.

Oh yeah: Hugo Chavez in a pants-suit.

Scooby|10.3.07 @ 11:42AM|#

That's like having the government take over every single activity in the state of California, public, private, and in between.

Hasn't the State gov't of California already done that?

ellipsis|10.3.07 @ 11:47AM|#

I have an irrational hatred of Rudolph Giuliani myself. But I'm not a fan of keeping the presidency in one of two families thing. I'm hoping Richardson will pull out the nomination. If not, I'm not voting.

Bhh|10.3.07 @ 11:48AM|#

You know they secretly want Hillary. It's a lot more fun to be lobbing poo from the sidelines than trying to choke down one Bush disaster after another and pretend it's chocolate ice cream.

I've done a lot of B. Clinton revisionism myself. He was basically a moderate republican. Plus its nice to see a president who can string three coherent sentences together.

|10.3.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Does the t-shirt woman ad on this site (No return to communism) count as Clinton bashing?

If so, I am torn...

|10.3.07 @ 12:12PM|#

Does the t-shirt woman ad on this site (No return to communism) count as Clinton bashing?

Those things are the worst ads I've seen on this site in a long time. Come on, I know you can't control what ads might pop up but I'd expect to see them on World Net Daily or LGF, not H&R.

|10.3.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Think about it: she wants to nationalize one-seventh of the nation's economy.

sage,

I assume you're talking about her health plan. She proposed a mandatory insurance plan a la Massachusetts. I wouldn't characterize that as a nationalization of health care, myself.

Bob|10.3.07 @ 12:19PM|#

" Meanwhile, National Review is raising money in a "Help Us Stop Hillary!" telethon. No engagement with the Democratic frontrunner's campaign, no attempt to understand the popularity comeback of her and her husband: Just a lot of nostalgiac outrage."

I have become used to this site, the torchbearer for an increasingly irrelevant political party, smearing people with whom it disagrees, but your trend of holding water for the Democratic candidates is disturbing, particularly given the statism of the Democratic frontrunners. Your increasingly frequent criticisms of leading Republican candidates and your utter lack of criticism and frequent defense of the most statist Democratic candidates is mind-boggling.
Now you have resulted to outright falsehoods to try to make your "points".
One merely has to peruse National Review's website for about 5 seconds to see article after artice concerning the policy positions of Hillary Clinton and numerous discussions concerning her popularity. But Hit & Run has never let facts stand in its way, and given the snarky tone of the above article, it probably never will.
Futhermore the comment about "nostalgic outrage" is just plain silly. Evidently when considering her fitness for president, the things she did in the past and the policy positions she took while her husband was in office are somehow irrelevant, at least that seems to be what you are saying. If such is the case, I expect to see no more articles on this website concerning her failed attempt to bring socialized medicine to this country.
I guess evidence of her questionable ethics, such as Whitewater and her seeming expertise in the futures market is totally irrelevant and speaks nothing of her character and fitness for the highest office in the United States and "leader of the free world".
The notion that such things should be off-limits in a serious debate, as implied by the term "nostalgic outrage" is not just silly, it's stupid.
If Jimmy Carter were running for president, I guess National review should never discuss his botched handling of the Iranian hostage crisis, the situation in Afghanistan, the energy crisis, his ridiculous "malaise comments" etc. lest they be accused of "nostalgic outrage". It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain such a position is ridiculous, hence your problem, I suppose.
What's even worse is the rank hypocrisy of this site, or the very least of the author of this piece. If I had a nickel for every article or thread on this message board that stirred up "nostalgic outrage" against Rudy Giuliani, I would be a very wealthy man.

Bob|10.3.07 @ 12:22PM|#

"And so on. Meanwhile, National Review is raising money in a "Help Us Stop Hillary!" telethon. No engagement with the Democratic frontrunner's campaign, no attempt to understand the popularity comeback of her and her husband: Just a lot of nostalgiac outrage"


Your attack on National Review is very similar to Keith Olbermann's frequent naming of Bill O'Reilly as the "Worst Person in the World". I wonder, does Olbermann do this out of jealousy over O'Reilly's ratings?

Urkobold™|10.3.07 @ 12:26PM|#

CESAR! SILENCE! THE URKOBOLD ENJOYS THOSE ADS MUCH MORE THAN YOUR POSTINGS.

THIS IS NOT A COMMENT ON YOUR POSTINGS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT COME LATER. THE URKOBOLD IS TOO BUSY AT THIS TIME TO COMMENT.

BOUNCY, BOUNCY!

SPD|10.3.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Thank God we now have a president who's never engaged in excessive substance use or used his connections to avoid conflict in Vietnam. Right, Bob?

dhex|10.3.07 @ 12:36PM|#

republicans get fucked and die.
democrats get fucked and die.
colloidal blue ferret-fuckers get fucked and die.
to those about to rock - get fucked and die.

did i miss anyone?

|10.3.07 @ 12:39PM|#

Those things are the worst ads I've seen on this site in a long time.

I don't know, I find them a lot more palatable than push-up guy.

|10.3.07 @ 12:43PM|#

That should be:

COME BACK TO MY PLACE! BOUNCY, BOUNCY!

|10.3.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Hey, x,y,

How's your record for predicting how the economy will perform if a President Clinton's economic and budget policies are adopted?

I'm guessing you're 0-1.

|10.3.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Joe I've seen you raise this point before, and it can be answered like this:

The economy didn't go into recession because (1) he didn't raise capital gains taxes--which tend to hurt investment in the economy the most--, and (2) his tax hike coincided with the rise of the personal computer and the internet, which caused an economic boom. Theres no way to prove it, but its quite possible the boom would have been even stronger had he kept the Reagan/Bush tax rates in place.

Guy Montag|10.3.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Meanwhile, National Review is raising money in a "Help Us Stop Hillary!" telethon.

David, what channel is this on in the DC area? We have FNC on here in the office, but they are just running regular news. Is it on the cable or on the wireless? FOX 5 maybe? Is it associated with the NRO webathon?

|10.3.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Now, joe, what about all those babies and mothers starving in the streets if welfare reform passed in 1995?

|10.3.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Cesar,

As it was, the boom was so strong that the Fed clamped down on interest rates in an effort to keep an even keel.

There was no way economic growth was going to be higher or longer in the 1990s.

|10.3.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Cesar,

The minority of Democrats who raised that specter were just as wrong, and demonstrably wrong, as the 100% of Republicans who told us that Clinton's economic policies would wreck the economy.

The other big difference being, the Democrats learned their lesson, and realize that they were wrong, while Republicans and libertarians continue to insist that their supply side Laughter Kurv fantasies are correct.

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Heck, I'm an admitted Clinton-hater, and even I think this is ridiculous. Granted, I think we're screwed if she gets in the White House, but we're also screwed if it's whomever the Republicans nominate.

And the irony of Bob's screed is so thick you could cut it with a knife. His statement about "an increasingly irrelevant political party" describes the G.O.P. more than anything, and not everybody here is a member of the Libertarian Party. He's obviously never read the Reason site or he'd notice that the Democratic candidates (especially Hillary) regularly get slagged as well. It's just that the Republican candidates with the exception of Ron Paul are slightly more hostile to liberty. But Bob likely supports things like sending drug users to prison to be sodomized and beaten, so it's no surprise that he'd see things differently.

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Thank God we now have a president who's never engaged in excessive substance use or used his connections to avoid conflict in Vietnam. Right, Bob?

LoL.

You know, regarding Bob, he's the first Republican party hack troll I've seen on here in a while.

|10.3.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Bob,
I think you missed the notice, but balanced budgeters and pro-business players are being running out of the Republican tent. The RP is for religious fundies now and you won't find many of them here.

|10.3.07 @ 2:35PM|#

The minority of Democrats who raised that specter were just as wrong, and demonstrably wrong, as the 100% of Republicans who told us that Clinton's economic policies would wreck the economy.

The majority of liberal Democrats wanted welfare reform? Really?

The foundations for the tech boom were laid in the 1980s. I doubt tech-start ups would have fared as well had we kept the confiscatory tax rates of the 1950s-70s.

|10.3.07 @ 2:51PM|#

Cesar,

Ah, now you're talking about "liberal Democrats." Before, the subject was "Democrats." Yes, the majority of Democrats supported reforming welfare, although there was opposition to the basic idea in certain quarters, and to many of the poison pills - such as mandatory marriage counselling - that the Republicans put into their bill.

|10.3.07 @ 2:56PM|#

The foundations for the tech boom were laid in the 1980s. I doubt tech-start ups would have fared as well had we kept the confiscatory tax rates of the 1950s-70s.

Well, the real cutoff was Kennedy's ditching of the 90% top mariginal rate in the early 60s. Whether Reagan's cut of the 50% rate to the mid 30s (IIRC) had an effect is less clear.

But the thing is, these predictions of disaster were made about a bill that increases the top marginal rate from the mid-30s to the mid-to-high 30s, while cutting lower rates. To predict a larger economic effect from that than what actually occured when the rate was seriously cut at earlier points is ridiculous.

Also, on the subject of the difference between Reagan-era and Clinton-era tax rates and economic performance, economic growth in the 90s outperformed that in the 80s. There was a longer period of growth, the growth was greater, the impact on poverty was much greater.

|10.3.07 @ 3:02PM|#

"The other big difference being, the Democrats learned their lesson, and realize that they were wrong, while Republicans and libertarians continue to insist that their supply side Laughter Kurv fantasies are correct."

Has supply side economics been proven to be incorrect? Supply side economics stimulated the economy in the 80's, 60's, and 20's. Demand side economics damaged the economy in the 30's.

"The minority of Democrats who raised that specter were just as wrong, and demonstrably wrong, as the 100% of Republicans who told us that Clinton's economic policies would wreck the economy."

Clinton didn't get to do what he wanted regarding increased spending because the Republican controlled Congress acted responsibly back then (as opposed to the last 7 years) and didn't allow the kind of big spending that the Clintons would have loved. If the Clintons had gotten away with bringing us the kind of big government they wanted, the economy would not have done so well back then.

|10.3.07 @ 3:11PM|#

"Also, on the subject of the difference between Reagan-era and Clinton-era tax rates and economic performance, economic growth in the 90s outperformed that in the 80s. There was a longer period of growth, the growth was greater, the impact on poverty was much greater."

Can you tell us, joe, what Clinton did that was responsible for that growth. Don't you think that credit should have gone to Greenspan. Also, Cesar has a point that the general lowering of taxes during the Reagan Administration is also greatly responsible for the growth in the economy that has taken place ever since.

|10.3.07 @ 3:20PM|#

I will give Clinton credit for not raising the capital gains rates in his tax hikes. That would have really hurt investment.

DannyK|10.3.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Man, we're up to 36 comments on a Clinton thread and still no DONDERO! I feel so abandoned.

|10.3.07 @ 3:38PM|#

"I assume you're talking about her health plan. She proposed a mandatory insurance plan a la Massachusetts. I wouldn't characterize that as a nationalization of health care, myself."

It is if the federal government controls it.

|10.3.07 @ 3:40PM|#

RJ,

Has supply side economics been proven to be incorrect? Yes. Unfortunately for Supply-Siders, their claims go well beyond the uncontroversial statement "Tax cuts stimulate the economy."

Clinton didn't get to do what he wanted regarding increased spending because the Republican controlled Congress acted responsibly back then (as opposed to the last 7 years) and didn't allow the kind of big spending that the Clintons would have loved. The first two Clinton budgets were passed by Democratic Congresses, and were within the same spending constraints as the budgets passed by Republican Congresses - spending restraints worked out by an earlier Democratic Congress and President Bush. It is absolutely false that Clinton would have spent more - he spent what the budget deal called for, and never broke that deal, even when the Democrats controlled Congress.

Can you tell us, joe, what Clinton did that was responsible for that growth. Nothing. I'm not making an argument that Clinton's policies han an effect on the performance of the economy, I'm refuting one made, and subsequently disproven, by Republicans and libertarians.

Clinton's economic policies helped our fiscal condition, and had other effects related to how the govenrment operated. The people who made such dramatic predictions with such arrogant certainty about their effect on the economy were chicken littles. And yet, they still insist the sky is going to fall.

|10.3.07 @ 3:54PM|#

"Has supply side economics been proven to be incorrect? Yes. Unfortunately for Supply-Siders, their claims go well beyond the uncontroversial statement "Tax cuts stimulate the economy."

What is the proof?

"It is absolutely false that Clinton would have spent more"

He would have if his socialized medicine scheme had become law.

"Clinton's economic policies helped our fiscal condition"

How?

|10.3.07 @ 4:06PM|#

RJ,

What is the proof?

That federal receipts dropped so low after Reagan's first tax cut that he had to implement the largest tax increase in American history to plug up the hole in the deficit.

That the American economy did even better after Clinton's tax hike, not worse, as the supply-siders predicted.

And that, contra Dick "Reagan Proved That Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney, the Bush tax cuts really did blow another hole in the budget, without any noticeable effect on the economy.

He would have if his socialized medicine scheme had become law. True, but he would have been using money that was already going into the health care system. The re-labelling of pay check deductions and corporate insurance bills would not have had a serious effect on the economy.

How? By reducing the deficit, then eliminating it, then allowing surpluses to pay down the existing debt.

|10.3.07 @ 4:10PM|#

"I assume you're talking about her health plan. She proposed a mandatory insurance plan a la Massachusetts. I wouldn't characterize that as a nationalization of health care, myself."

It is if the federal government controls it.

My state requires me to have auto insurance. Has my state "nationalized" the automotive industry?

I'm not an advocate for her plan, but calling HillaryCare II "Nationalized Healthcare" is hyperbole at best.

|10.3.07 @ 4:40PM|#

No engagement with the Democratic frontrunner's campaign, no attempt to understand the popularity comeback of her and her husband: Just a lot of nostalgiac outrage.

Relax David...the election is still over a year away...no one is paying attention to this shit yet.

|10.3.07 @ 5:07PM|#

"That federal receipts dropped so low after Reagan's first tax cut that he had to implement the largest tax increase in American history to plug up the hole in the deficit."

What I was talking about was stimulating the economy, not raising revenue.

"That the American economy did even better after Clinton's tax hike, not worse, as the supply-siders predicted."

It didn't do better because of Clinton's tax hike. It did alright in spite of Clinton's tax hike. As Cesar pointed out, the economy was driven because of the high tech industries.

"the Bush tax cuts really did blow another hole in the budget, without any noticeable effect on the economy."

There is a noticeable effect on the economy, a great improvement, lower unemployment. The problem is regarding the hole in the budget, that Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and Bush has allowed them to.

"He would have if his socialized medicine scheme had become law. True, but he would have been using money that was already going into the health care system. The re-labelling of pay check deductions and corporate insurance bills would not have had a serious effect on the economy."

Oh, contrare! When people feel like they are getting something for free, they tend to overuse. Health care costs would have spiraled out of control and would have led to higher taxes to pay for them which would eventually have led to rationing of services when people started complaining about the high taxes.

"How? By reducing the deficit, then eliminating it, then allowing surpluses to pay down the existing debt."

Once again, the deficit was reduced through greater revenue created by the high tech industry. Clinton had nothing to do with it, although Democrats are quick to take credit for it.

|10.3.07 @ 5:19PM|#

RJ,

It didn't do better because of Clinton's tax hike. It did alright in spite of Clinton's tax hike.

I know that. I already said that. But once again, the question you asked was for evidence that Supply Side theory had been discreditted, and I gave you some. Supply side true believers - as in, every Republican and libertarian in Washington - told us, based on Supply Side theory, that the economy would crumle. It didn't. They, and their theory, were completely useless at helping us understand the effects of that tax increase.

There is a noticeable effect on the economy, a great improvement, lower unemployment. That's what happens when you come out of a cyclicall recession. We also say unemployment go down and GDP growth improve after the early 90s recession, too - you know, the one that was greeted with two, count 'em two, tax increases. No, your tiger-repelling rock doesn't impress me.

The problem is regarding the hole in the budget, that Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and Bush has allowed them to. Actually, studies of the issue conclude that between 1/4 and 1/3 of the deficit is the result of the tax cut.

Once again, the deficit was reduced through greater revenue created by the high tech industry. No, that's wrong. The greater economic growth occured because of the high-tech industry (among other private-sector drivers). Some of the additional revenue would have materialized if Clinton had left tax rates alone, but a great deal of it resulted from higher tax rates.

Higher tax rates which, once again, did not send our economy into a tailspin, as the supply siders predicted it would.

JBinMO|10.3.07 @ 6:46PM|#

"I sometimes wish GWB had never taken an interest in world affairs."

When did he start doing that?

JBinMO|10.3.07 @ 7:05PM|#

"Tax cuts stimulate the economy"

I always assumes it depends on the cause of a particular rescession. I think in some cases they do help, but not 100% of the time.

|10.3.07 @ 7:27PM|#

"the Bush tax cuts really did blow another hole in the budget, without any noticeable effect on the economy."

There is a noticeable effect on the economy, a great improvement, lower unemployment. The problem is regarding the hole in the budget, that Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and Bush has allowed them to.

Right, it had nothing to do with easy credit, the end of a recession and wartime spending.