I’ve been listening to Bill Clinton’s autobiography in an abridged book-on-tape version, read by the author. He talks about his daughter’s pet frog. He talks about his family and their struggles with obesity and alcohol and cocaine addiction. He talks about stopping at McDonald’s for coffee towards the end of his morning jog back in Arkansas. The book demonstrates how far politicians have come since the days of Nixon (no one dares hope that anyone in our current crop will measure up to an old thinker/writer/doer such as Jefferson). Nixon was the man who struggled with big issues that were important to all Americans. You’d expect to find Nixon writing about how he started up the Environmental Protection Agency, got us out of Vietnam, and opened up trade with Red China. Clinton, on the other hand, seems totally unreflective. He talks about how people cheered when he got Itzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat to sign some sort of agreement in the backyard of the White House but not about why, if this was such an important accomplishment, 12 years later the war between Arabs and Jews continues unabated. He mentions the dates on which he decided to start bombing people in former Yugoslavia but does not take advantage of the distance of a decade to look at the long-term result (as far as I’ve heard, both the Christians whom we bombed and the Muslims on whose behalf we were bombing hate us now).
Clinton rails against the “conservative media” who misrepresented his proposals, much as our current rulers rail against the “liberal media”. He expresses genuine confusion that the U.S. contained so many angry little people who harassed him by alleging scandals or imagined that they understood his motivations or marriage. Speaking of “little people”, Clinton never seems to have harbored any doubt, even as a young man, that he was entitled to their vote. He believed right from the start that he was the best-qualified person for whatever job he was seeking. Perhaps this is why we’ve had so many presidents from small towns in obscure states and surprisingly few from big cities. If you grow up as the only smart person in a tiny school you might subconsciously believe for the rest of your life that you ought to be elected governor, president, whatever. If, on the other hand, you grow up in Manhattan you might remember “hey, there were a bunch of folks in my old neighborhood who knew a lot more than I did and would probably do a better job.” This might tend to sap your confidence.
If you want to learn about government, foreign policy, management, etc. the book is useless. If, on the other hand, you’re exasperated at the mediocrity of our current President, this book is a nice reminder that George W. has no monopoly on mediocrity.
[You might ask why I continue to listen. I’m driving N to Nashua, New Hampshire every morning for helicopter lessons and then SW to Concord, Massachusetts for English riding lessons in the afternoon and therefore am spending several hours every day in the car.]
Hey, don’t sell Nixon short. He was responsible for a few more “big issues”. Watergate comes to mind.
Oh, and there’s that behind-the-scenes deal making with North Vietname before his 1968 election to postpone negotiations to end the war. Should we bring up those bombing runs in Cambodia.
Oh, he “got us out of Vietnam” alright. Dear Jesus.
Selective memory is a beautiful thing, for both Philip and Clinton.
Democrat Presidents get the USA into wars that Republican Presidents get the USA out of.
PatrickG, I’d love to hear an example of your theory.
Well, one thing Clinton points out that’s very accurate. Gingrich was a real hypocrite.
I liked Clinton’s response to the AP reporter who asked about the five women who he may have had sexual relations with, “Why don’t you ask them?”
Man, he’s even slippery in his own book. But I guess I feel his pain.
yeah, great observations, but if clinton’s book so frustratingly shallow, why not just listen to another book or britney or something else?
i watched lehrer interview clinton this week, and it was illuminating on some of the issues you raise. it’s nice that you compare bush and clinton, because i feel it’s appropriate to compare you with bush.
you both have such strong confident voices, and yet are both full of shit.
on the bright side, you and clinton both earned success…
Good point, Mr Greenspun. I started to read the Book but only got to the third chapter. After a while I was asking myself: “Am I really interested in this?”
Or maybe I’m just spoiled reading Churchill’s “The second world war”…
I have looked through the book, and I believe that Philip is right. Bill Clinton is a very selfish person. He has go an ego the size of Bush’s ranch. Look at his ridiculous preidential library which is costing hundreds of millions of dollars. It looks like a big wanker sticking out over the river. And what purpose will this serve?
Democrat Presidents get the USA into wars that Republican Presidents get the USA out of.
LOL
Democrat, Republican, it doesn’t really matter. Every president so far has been only too keen to get us into wars. The only real exception being Carter, and that decision didn’t help him one bit.
Philip, Clinton’s book sounds more interesting than yours.
English riding lessons? Are you thinking of taking up polo?
Philip, with this attitude of yours I have one thing to say to you. This is Cheney’s trademark though: “Go fuck yourself.” big time. For you the only good option is the president who supports Israel like a sick puppy. Well again, you can “go fuck yourself.”
Effete Eastern Seaboard snob. Just joking. We ride endurance but you can be very sure we don’t do endurance riding.
Don’t let the ticks and deerflys get you.
What breed are you taking lessions on? Also what kind of lessions?
Oh, Kansas fools! Poor Kansas fools!
The banker makes of you a tool.
To the guy who is swearing at Philip, please stop. While I do not accept uncritical support of Israeli policies either, your ad homenim attack undermines any argument you may make. If you have something to contend, I’d like to hear it. But attacking Philip personally, ingnoring what Philip is saying serves nothing other than to sever the connection between all of us and ultimately undermine justice for Palestinians and Israelis both.
Philip, Nixon “got us out of Vietnam”? Which US history book did you get that from? Explain yourself: I rememeber Nixon expanded the war by secretly bombing Cambodia and North Vietnam in 1970 onwards. The final US pullout of the region happened in 1977 with the US evacuation of Pnom Pen, three years after Nixon’s resignation.
The Vietnam war was the longest war the US has ever waged. Depending on who you read, the war started a few years after Den Bien Phu. That would put its beginnings at around 1960, which coincides with my friend’s orders that put him, a USMC medic at the time, in Saigon.
Considering the pace at which Clinton wrote the book, and the tiny timespan from departing the WhiteHouse to starting writing (funny what needing money will do), it is not surprising that the book is without reflection. Insight takes time.
I just looked up RN (Nixon’s first memoir)–many of the criticisms are that he didn’t wait long enough either.
Greg: I do hit the polo ball around a bit with my friend Max, who is really into the game. The riding lessons are an attempt to make this activity less life-threatening. Also, I would like to take some 10-day tours of foreign countries on horseback so I need to get more comfortable at faster gaits. My feet are completely flat so I look for any opportunity to do things outdoors that don’t require supporting all of my weight (stubbornly stuck at 195 lbs., which the Federales say is too fat for a 6′ tall guy, and which prevents flying the R22 helicopter with an instructor and full fuel) on my feet.
Dogbert: What breed? I don’t have my own horse but just ride whatever horses are available. My friend’s polo horses are from Argentina. The horses at the riding school seem to be mostly thoroughbred mixtures of various kinds.
Nick: I didn’t mean to pass judgement on Nixon’s achievements or lack thereof. I was merely offering ideas for what I thought the man would write about rather than his childrens’ pets. It is kind of funny that a review of Clinton’s spectacularly terrible book brings out so much hatred of Israel among the blog commenters. Perhaps they blame the Jews working in the U.S. publishing industry for publishing any tedious book but it is hard to see what the Israelis had to do with it.
Sorry this is so off topic.
My theory: I think what got people on the track of questioning your Israeli Exceptionalism is your blogging history about Israeli policy, but more on target is that statement about Nixon getting us out of the Vietnam war, which while I took issue with it as being grossly uninformed, other people associate with Kissinger. Kissinger, under Nixon, truly solidified the debacle Stalemate policy toward Israel that exists up until today.
While you might think I’m anti-Israel, I consider myself actually pro-Israel. But I also consider myself pro-Palestinian. I always try to think of what has not been working for the Israelis and the Palestinians and think of how to change it because I want peace and justice for both parties. I firmly believe that taking an anti-stance on either concerned party will not move one iota toward peace.
P. Logan : IMHO Watergate was peanuts comparing to Clinton’s coconuts (not mentionning GW Bush one’s). Starting with the Waco, TX blunder + cover-up
hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. SMART Yellow Pages, About DIRare, Search in Business Category. From online directory .