Clinton on the Couch
Taking a page from Harry Pottermania, bookstores across America (well, at least one in D.C.–the Dupont Circle Books-a-Million) are staying open late tonight and having midnight parties celebrating the release of Bill Clinton's eagerly anticipated and apparently boring memoir, My Life.
The best moment in the Dan Rather interview? My pick goes to this moment:
He slept on the couch for months while he says Hillary Clinton considered whether to stay married to him. Of the impeachment itself, Mr. Clinton told Rather his fight against it was a "badge of honor," and that he was proud it failed in driving him from office.
Whole thing here. The picture at the CBS site is priceless, featuring Clinton doing his best Dick Van Dyke (hiccup).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Now, lets see here… When the Clintons moved into the Whitehouse Hillary took the Vice Presidential suite and Al Gore had to live off campus. So why was Bill on the couch in his own suite? Did Hillary remove all the beds from the Vice President Suite? Why did she make Gore live off campus if she was sleeping in the Presidents suite?
This is all very confusing; What a wicked web we weave when we practice to decieve…
“On the couch” is a colloquialism, Bruce. Chill.
I assumed he merely meant that he was in the doghouse.
Why would he be in a doghouse if he had his own room? Where then did his dog sleep?
I like that. He’s elected President Of The United States, most powerful politician in the world, effectively title-owner of the White House and everything within it, with the tip of his finger empowered to destroy the world in nuclear armageddon . . .
and his wife made him sleep on the couch.
Only in America!
How pre 9/11.
wellfellow
Please note, Clinton’s dog turned up dead, the victim of a “car accident” that happened when he was “accidently” let out of the house, and ran into the road. And who let him out?
That’s right.
Just another life sacrificed to those maniacs’ lust for power!
Hey Mike,
A lot of shit that was funny pre 9/11 is still funny post 9/11.
Who else is humming Hank Williams’ “Move It On Over” while they read this?
Kevin
Until last night, I never empathized with Slick Willy in any way, but, back when all this was happening, although I wasn?t married, I was sleeping on the couch too. If Hillary had dumped him while he was President, she probably wouldn’t be a Senator now, and he probably wouldn’t have gotten anything done; not that he did much anyway. My pick for best moment went to the couch revelation too.
But a close second was the peripheral discussion of what should or shouldn?t go into his library. If you take out the Monica stuff and the impeachment stuff, what else is there? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a two-term President in history who did as little him. I doubt he?ll brag about raising our taxes, but he did bomb the Bosnians to great effect. What were his other achievements? As President, I mean.
I can’t think of a two-term President in history who did as little him.
I can’t think of a greater achievement than that.
Clinton legacy = Welfare reform and EITC.
My personal feelings on EITC is that, even though it’s a progressive and redistributionist income tax element, it ramps personal responsibility and performance expectations back into the equation, and so enables people to work their way out of the negative-feedback welfare state trap. So I can live with it.
Only Nixon could go to China; only a centrist Democrat could dismantle the welfare-state trap.
Warren,
Amen. I think it was Dean Koontz who said something to the effect that WJC had been good for the country because he had caused us to trust elected officials less – another accomplishment he is too modest to brag about. If the reason for his lack of “accomplishment” has anything to do with the vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I’m ready to join. Is there a comparable vast Left Wing Conspiracy I can join to stop Republican “progress?”
Actually, I think there was so much poetic justice in WJC’s Presidency. One of the first things he did as President was to sign into law changes in the Rules of Evidence (vetoed by Bush 41) that allowed digging into the sexual history of those accused of sex offenses. He said of Nixon that any President who lied to the American people should resign (not to mention HRC’s involvement in the Watergate prosecution). Democrats supported the independent counsel law as long as they were in control of Congress and could use it to go after Republicans; they didn’t care much for it once the tables were turned. Throughout his career, trial lawyers were his biggest supporters, and he left office owing them $millions – not that he intends to ever pay them OR pay the taxes on the benefits he received from his lawyers and those who donated to his legal defense fund.
What really puzzles me is why anyone would pay over $100,000 to hear him speak when he never shuts up and you already know what he is going to say.
I have to confess not knowing much about the advent of the EITC, but wasn’t Welfare Reform a Gingrich thing?
The best part of the book deal is that we get to see another installment of the play where Bill Clinton plays the abusive husband and the national news media plays the battered wife.
“He said he’s changed. We’ll take him back again…”
Personally, I cannot wait to see the recently reported BBC footage in which Willy supposedly loses his cool when the interviewer has the gaul to suggest that his contrition is less than sincere.
The guy’s a complete sociopath. He is willing to sink the campaigns of Democratic presidential hopefuls just so he can flex his muscles. He did this to Gore in the summer of ’00 and he’s doing it again to JFK. Wanna-bes like Gore and Kerry can only stew in their own juices while they watch Bill succeed effortlessly where they struggle to be mediocre. It’s like a car wreck. I am compelled to watch.
The EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] was enacted in 1975 to offset federal taxes paid by low-income wage earners and to serve as a work incentive. Last year, more than 20 million taxpayers collected more than $36 billion in EITC payments.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=119792,00.html
The benefits have been expanded over the years, including under WJBC, but it is widely seen as a halfway measure derived from Nixon’s proposed “Family Assistance Plan”, which was inspired by Milton Friedman’s version of a Negative Income Tax.
Kevin
Warren, for that to be an acheivement it has to be intentional. Clinton did not do much, because he was not actually very good at governing, just BSing. The 1st 2 years of his administrattion show what an activist president he would have liked to have been, but that was enede when the dems lost the congress.
Ken, the NAFTA bill was only one of many free trade bills that passed on Clinton’s watch. Had there not been presidential leadership on the issue, the Democratic party would still be outspokenly protectionist.
On welfare reform, Clinton staked out a pro-reform position and brought numerous legislators into it. Welfare reform could not have passed without Democratic support. As for the first two bills, the guarantee of a presidential veto changes the dynamics of the voting, allowing people who have no intention of allowing a bill to pass to vote for it in order to avoid heat from back home. Had Clinton said he would sign whatever Congress passed, those first two bills would not have passed. Not exactly an inspiring tale, but that’s how sausage gets made.
I blame Clinton both for waiting too long in Bosnia, and for doing nothing in Rwanda. His legacy certainly is not unblemished in these areas.
We wouldn’t have benefitted if the Asian flu had brought about a deep global recession. The fact that Mexico’s biggest problem ISN’T economic collapse or poverty-fueled civil unrest is a consequence of Clinton and Rubin’s efforts. Sometimes, it’s the dog that doesn’t bark that matters.
I suppose at that point he couldn’t afford to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.
clinton vetoed welfare reform twice
WJC didn’t muck things up too much – the GOP Congress prevented much of that. Lord knows he didn’t try though.
Anyone remember his plan to pay for maternal leave with Unemployment Insurance money? Typical short-sighted Dem thinking: this money, meant (and saved) for something else, would have bankrupt any Unemployment Insurance account that took part in it. (hehe kind of like what the Feds do with the Social Security “trust fund”)
Clinton’s legacy:
He realigned the politics of global trade, standing up to his party to do so.
He not only signed a welfare reform bill, he actually got (by vetoeing two earlier, election driven poison pill bills) a hostile Congress to enact a bill that actually stood a chance of getting through, being supported, and being implemented.
He won the peace after the Cold War, bringing former enemies right up to the Russian border into the Western sphere (and often, into NATO).
He saved lord knows how many lives the former Yugoslavia, setting the region on a track towards liberal democracy.
Remember the collapse of the Mexican economy, which caused widespread civil disorder and a massive refugee crisis? Me neither.
Remember when the chain reaction of devaluations starting in Asia plunged the world into a depression? Me neither.
And does anyone remember what race relations were like in this country in 1991? The advances made in this area, keep in mind, occured during the era of welfare reform and a Republican Congress still determined to adhere to a Southern Strategy.
We’re obviously not going to agree on the extent to which Clinton should be credited with what happened on his watch, but, for the record, I’d like to add that I wasn’t referring only to NAFTA above. I think Bush Sr. should get more credit than President Clinton for bringing the Uruguay Round to fruition, but, having said that, Clinton could have dropped the ball, but didn’t. I would also mention that just because Mexico paid us back earlier than anticipated doesn?t mean that the Clinton Administration?s blessing of Mexico?s devaluation was a success. We can start talking about success once the people of Mexico achieve the same kind of purchasing power that they had prior to devaluation.
I would also like it to go on the record that there was deep global chaos because of the Asian Flu, and there was a world wide drop in the price of commodities. It affected Germany, and the kind of political chaos you referred to actually happened in Indonesia. Malaysia refused to allow people to take their cash out of the country and blamed their problems on Jews. Japan’s problems started long before the Asian Flu, but until very recently, they haven’t had anything like growth. It affected Argentina and Brazil, and every country whose exports were composed primarily of commodities including Russia and Canada. That?s right Canada! I remember when they hit remarkable lows against the US Dollar.
I remember a day, I forget the date, when the WSJ ran an Op-Ed against the World Bank and the IMF on the same day that anti-globalization marchers denounced the World Bank and the IMF. Sometimes blame and credit are just a question of perspective, but the Clinton Administration’s actions during and directly after the crisis were roundly denounced by both ends of the political spectrum. Using US Tax Payer money to bail out failed speculative investments and crony capitalists is a credit to the Clinton Administration? You are one of the only people I’ve encountered who seem to praise the actions of the Clinton Administration during the crisis, which isn’t to say you’re wrong, but it?s a perspective with which I have to admit I am unfamiliar.
But that’s just for the record, mind you.
Joe,
Don’t forget our glorious victory in bombing an aspirin factory! Misdirection on the eve of impeachment? Nah…
Clinton may have stood up to his party when George Bush Sr. lateraled the ball to him on Free Trade, but George Bush Sr. was already standing in the end zone when he lateraled the ball. Clinton didn’t drop it, and I guess he deserves some credit for that, but then we should give at least as much credit to George Meaney and the AFL-CIO.
Regarding Welfare Reform, maybe I’m confused on process, but as I remember, the President doesn’t have an opportunity to veto a bill until after the bill has already been passed by both houses. You’re suggesting that his veto helped get Welfare Reform implemented, but if he wanted it implemented, all he had to do was sign it the first time around.
I gave Clinton some credit for Bosnia, but if I had my original post back, I would have written that he, “…bombed Bosnia to some effect.” But if you’re going to give him credit for that, then I think you have to give him a share of the blame for sitting on his hands and breathing through his nose while the horrors of Rawanda raged also.
I would argue that much of the Asian Flu was caused by China coming on line and the neo-mercantilist states subsequent inability to deal with it. Because the United States had largely exited manufacturing industries that competed with China, and because our economy wasn’t as heavily based on the commodities in question, we didn’t suffer so much; indeed, we benefited.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and the Philippines still haven’t fully recovered, and the last time I heard news from Mexico, they claimed that their biggest problem was losing manufacturing jobs to China. South America’s problems, especially in Argentina and Brazil, with their heavy reliance on commodities, weren’t and aren’t completely unrelated either.
What did Clinton have to do with any of that?
The negative income tax unlike raising the minimum wage might like … actually work. I don’t expect to hear either candidate propose it.
Ken, preventing his party from stopping free trade (despite the flaws in the agreements) was a significant contribution Clinton made. His leadership is the reason NAFTA passed Congress. Considering the openly protectionist stance of his party’s leadership, that counts as more than not dropping the ball. Sometimes, the yard you gain on 3rd and short is more important than the 8 you gain on first and 10.
The outcomes of the Asian flu and Mexican devaluation are bad, but they could have been much worse without strong presidential leadership.