« TRUTH STANDS ALONE | Deanie Mills's Blog | BILL CLINTON'S REMARK: WHEN "GOTCHA" JOURNALISM CROSSES ETHICAL LINES »

LIPSTICK ON A PIG


We've been here before.

It's all wearyingly familiar.

Faces twisted in rage, insulters shouting down those with a Roberts Rules of Order right to speak, angry threats and snotty comments to reporters...and for those of us on the sidelines, that same sickening feeling as we listen to or watch or read news reports...that feeling of frustration and anger, the urge to shout at the TV or radio, the moody preoccupation with events over which we have no control--and last, but not least, that miserable knowledge that this whole thing is, yet again, not even a real controversy, but a frenzy whipped up for political theater, with the passions of innocent victims used and abused as weapons for the personal gain of those at the top of the heap.

And as before, the principals involved are busy blaming everyone else under the sun for their travails but themselves, giving partisans on either side something else to argue about.

I'm finding cherished friendships now under significant strain over something that has nothing to do with the relationship between the two of us, and again, we've seen all this before.

Remember the '90's?

I mean, REALLY remember?

It started--and perhaps those of us who voted for him should have been paying closer attention--but it started during the Clinton campaign of '92.  "Bimbo eruptions."  Gennifer.  Paula.

The Clintons, even then, vowed to FIGHT this Republican Attack Machine that was trying to destroy them.

Everybody likes a fighter, right?

So boy, we all joined in the brawl, didn't we?  Faced off our conservative friends, flocked to the polls, all tuned in to 60 Minutes after the Super Bowl.  Thought the Clintons were so cool.

Delivered them the White House.

And almost immediately, there were more eruptions--Travelgate, White Water. 

Republican opponents accused the Clintons of withholding important documents; we countered that the whole thing was a fake-controversy engineered by partisans who hated the Clintons with such mad-dog intensity that you found yourself fighting for the First Couple in sympathy even if you weren't that crazy about them to start with.

Bill put Hillary in charge of health care, and suddenly, it was all about Hillary more than about health care; all about whether it was  a "co-presidency," all about her charming Capitol Hill, and how smart she was, and what a good job she was doing. 

But all along, under the surface, massive resentments grew within the Democratic congress because she was acting behind closed doors without any of their input, and when the Big Plan was sprung, she refused compromise of any sort even within her own party, and set the whole debate up as a "with us or against us" showdown, forcing conservative Democrats to vote against it, handing the right-wing their biggest victory, and contributing to a takeover two years into the Clinton administration of Congress by Republicans which led, ultimately, to the debacle of a government we see today.

We need to remember.  REALLY remember.

It dragged on, and dragged on.  More bimbo eruptions, and as the accusations from the right-wing grew positively Machiavellian, we knew that this wasn't about any failings of the Clintons but was about shoving a right-wing agenda down the throats of a populace easily manipulated by soundbite sloganeering.

We just knew it.  We were so sure of it.

For eight years, we seethed, shouted at the TV news, argued with relatives, defended and defended and defended the Clintons against the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,

Then came Monica.

This time, we raged, and with good reason, because Ken Starr was so overtly a political hack, and because his dumping of the Clinton Grand Jury testimony on the Internet before even Clinton's own lawyers had seen it, was so unseemly, such a disgrace, such a travesty of the law.

And we fought with and for the Clintons.  Boy did we fight.  We fought to prevent an impeachment over something we found ridiculous, especially in light of, you know, INVADING A COUNTRY AND LYING TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE ABOUT THE REASONS WHY.

After all that, we cheered Hillary on when she put in for the Senate run--even when she sucked all the oxygen out of Al Gore's campaign room by stealing all the biggest fundraisers for her own Senate campaign and didn't really campaign for him because she was so busy with her own run.

And Gore--he was in a tough spot.  Embrace Bill and risk being CRUCIFIED by the Attack Machine, or distance himself and insult many in the party.

Bill put him in that position, simply by his own inability to harness his appetites.  Narcissists tend to do things like that.

When Hillary got elected, we swore to our conservative friends that noooooo, she was not looking to take over the White House.

But we were exhausted, man.  Worn out with all the battles and all the anger and all the fights--especially when a tiny cadre of judges who'd been given their jobs by the Republican candidate's daddy handed Daddy's Boy the White House, oh man, were we ever demoralized and devastated.

Of course, if Bill had kept his pants zipped in the first place, Gore would most likely have won with plenty of votes to prevent such a scenario.  And just think where this country might have been by now.

We need to remember.  REALLY remember.

Do you know what the Clinton's were doing in the news right before the Monica story broke?

I do.  I remember it vividly. 

First, they were filmed from a distance, dancing together in their bathing suits on a beach during a vacation.  The big controversy was whether or not they knew they were being filmed in this romantic moment.

And second, the White House was holding a contest for someone to come up with a name for Bill's new chocolate labrador puppy.  (He wound up naming him "Buddy" after an uncle, but still.)

This was what was dominating the news about the Clintons.  Whitewater had not stuck--in spite of the much-vaunted Attack Machine and their Attack Dog Starr--tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and virtually the entire FBI in their pockets, and they could find NOTHING.

Until Bill lied about a blowjob.

We've spent seven years in hell since Bush was selected president.  That miserable feeling of rage and frustration and the utter depression of feeling we have no control over events that define our lives has continued this entire time.

This political season started as one of unprecedented hope and excitement and energy for the Democratic party, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars, pulling in millions of new voters, energizing the base and bringing in Independents and moderate Republicans.  All of our candidates were outstanding.

We could not lose.

Until Hillary started to.

In spite of the fact that her campaign badly misjudged the American mood with their campaign message of experience over change; in spite of the fact that they blew through money like water with unneccessary luxury spending; in spite of the fact that they had no organization on the ground in place to even consider having to go beyond Super Tuesday; in spite of a lackluster Internet organization, in spite of backbiting and infighting within the campaign--much like there was within the Clinton White House--in spite of monumental gaffes committed by the candidate herself...well, it wasn't their fault.

SEXISM!

MEDIA BIAS!

THE DNC HATES US!

And so the nasty set in.  As soon as Clinton set herself up as Joan d'Fighter, then here came all the old familiar standbys:  snotty surrogates making sensational claims on talk shows, enraged supporters baring their teeth at detractors, Republican opponents launching snide countersnarls, and phony issues getting whipped up by partisans into a frenzy of outrage completely unrelated to the problems at hand.

Only this time, it was the Clintons themselves egging the whole thing on.

So here we are, back again in ClintonLand. 

The land of anger and misery and division and depression and anxiety.  And friendships driven apart.

I don't begrudge her supporters their rage--I've felt a fair amount of it myself when my candidate gets dragged into racist smears. 

(Maybe they haven't received in their Inboxes the forwards I have from conservative friends, depicting such things as color caricatures emphasizing not just his ears, but his lips dontcha know.)

But I do think that they are being used, and the fact that the candidate has stepped back into the shadows and allowed them to surge forward into near-hysterical demonstrations of outrage and hate is a disgrace on her part.  She should be ashamed.

Even if she had a true case in the Michigan/Florida debacle--which she does not, for so many reasons you could write a whole book on it--she does not honor her supporters by encouraging this dramatic display, and they don't honor her when they claim Obama's supporters are a "cult," that primary elections are being "rigged" for him, that he is a socialist like Hitler was, and that they'll vote for McCain no matter what unless Hillary gets her way.

They only wind up looking crazy, and she winds up looking desperate and mean.

And now, the divisions are borderline psychotic.  Hillary supporters have banned online news sources because, you know, the ENTIRE media is biased.  One said they only pay attention to BBC reports.

Which means, I guess, THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY is against Hillary and, by extension, identification, and classic psychological transferance--THEM.

When you're in ClintonLand, compromise is absolutely out of the question.  It is considered a form of weakness.  Paula Jones, for example, offered to settle the lawsuit against Bill, and he was ready to do so.  But nooooo, Hillary said, LET'S FIGHT! 

And so fight they did--all the way to impeachment.

In the Florida/Michigan impasse, to Clinton and her mad-dog supporters who showed up for the meeting, there was to be no compromise.  Either they got their whole way, or it was nothing.

Even after DNC lawyers released a 38-page memo stating in clear terms that, legally, only half-votes could be awarded to the delegates--that was shoved aside as though it did not exist.

Anything less was a personal attack on the Clintons and Hillary's campaign.

We've been here before.

It's all wearyingly familiar.

We need to remember.  REALLY remember.

The big question all Democrats everywhere must ask themselves now is, DO WE WANT TO GO THERE AGAIN?

Because we already know what a Clinton White House would be like.  We already know about the us-against-them battles, the rage of supporters, the partisan political divisions and government lockdowns and inevitable scandals.

We should have been paying attention in the primary campaign of '92.  We should have realized that the way a campaign is managed gives us a pretty clear picture of the way an administration will govern.

And if we hadn't figured it out then, we most surely have after seven years of a Karl Rove administration.

Barack Obama's campaign has been streamlined, efficient, well-organized.  Its message has been clear, concise, and consistent.  His team is close-knit and not divided by backbiting and infighting.  He's done his best to maintain his dignity against unconscionable racist attacks, some launched by Hillary's campaign.

He flat-out told his supporters not to demonstrate during the DNC meeting.  Over and over again, his campaign offered scenarios for compromise, all of which were rejected by Hillary and her people.

He tries to take the high road.  He tries to keep people together.  He is no saint, and he's made mistakes, and he will make mistakes in the White House.

But wouldn't it be nice if we could go into a new administration with a feeing of hope, excitement, and peace of mind?  A feeling of fresh change and new direction? 

Of looking forward and not behind?

Hillary has made herself ugly with the nastiness of this campaign.  Her supporters only reflect the bitterness she has enflamed.

Even when the Rules Committee tried to find a fair solution, one of her noisier supporters--many of whom repeatedly shouted down Committee members who were trying to do their jobs--yelled, "LIPSTICK ON A PIG."

That's what Hillary's campaign has come to resemble.

Do we really want to take this into the White House?

AGAIN?


197 Comments

| Leave a comment

We remember, although we have tried to forget. Thank you for refreshing that memory; yours is a cautionary tale that bears re-telling until everyone gets it. Thank you.

First post I've ever actually put in a personal archive. Thanks so much!

user-pic

Yes, we remember and no, we don't want it again. The people have spoken.

You've got the gift of word, by the way.

Awesome! I almost never read a post this long but damn it if you didn't suck me in.

I've been blaming the Republicans for the sorry state of American Politics since 1994. People like Gingrich, Bush, and Frist. You've just brained me with the Cudgel of Truth. The blame really should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Clintons for enabling fools like Gingrinch, Bush, and Frist for rising to postitions of power in the first place.

This divisivness has resurfaced before our very eyes during this primary. The shocking thing is that this time, it's not between Republican and Democrat, but Democrat and Democrat. Anybody who thinks the Clintons won't carry this back into the White House either needs to open their eyes, or read your post and have them opened.

The Clintons really do have one talent though, don't they?

The blame really should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Clintons for enabling fools like Gingrinch, Bush, and Frist for rising to postitions of power in the first place.

I have to disagree. I think it's time to realize that the blame lands squarely on us. We were the enablers of the Clintons.

We indulged our own opportunism when we defended Bill Clinton as he indulged his. We may have believed we were justified for any number of seemingly good reasons, but in so doing, we opened the door that George W. Bush waltzed through.

Until we take responsibility for our opportunism, we will continue to pay the price for everyone else's.

Good point and reality check.

Hi Deanie - when I heard the "lipstick on a pig" comment yesterday, I figured that would elicit a response from you. You sure didn't disappoint. As usual, a wonderful read. Thanks!

You could have just said, "I've hated the Clintons forever and don't really understand why" and saved yourself a lot of lines.

Could have, but that wasn't the point of the post.

Yes, I understand. Feeding the lions. 175 Recommends.

You suggest visceral minimalism then. Works.

But she does really, really understand why. It is you who are in the woods here.

user-pic
You could have just said, "I've hated the Clintons forever and don't really understand why" and saved yourself a lot of lines.

It isn't hate Des, its fatigue.

I think the author was quite clearly a Clinton supporter for many years. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure you're really qualified to comment here or anywhere else. The hardcore Clinton supporters seem to live in some strange reverse parallel universe where up is down, left is right, right is wrong. Please, just once, try a little reality. Who knows, you might like it.

I'm really so embarrassed. I had no idea we had to somehow qualify to post comments here, or anywhere else, as you suggest. I'd appreciate some direction - do you have a link that describes the qualifications?

Qualifications = not in the rabbit-hole w/ Alice - somewhere that logic still prevails.

user-pic

Wait until the press turns its collective contempt on Obama. It has started already and they're too dumb to see it. Look at what they did to Gore and by extension all democrats and no matter how often you point it out, they think it will be different this time.

"One said they only pay attention to BBC reports."

And Fox News - they called Fox the only "fair and balanced" network on tv.

Um, have any of you seen the BBC lately? They also believe that Obama has the nomination all but sewn up.

So I guess that leaves the interesting combination of Al-Jazeera and Fox Noise...

user-pic

Deanie, you've outdone yourself!

Yup, you've got the "gift of word," as Lookingin said above.

Rather than do over again a bunch of comments, I'll refer anyone who cares to take a look at some "shrink analysis" of what you've so well described to this thread on the rec list by Kate O'Hara:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/thanks-to-my-new-tpm-friends.php

Just scroll down for the "musical note" or read the whole thread, which is fascinating and very related to this one.

I also made some similar comments here this morning and I recommend that thread by emptywhell as as well:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/01/a-recap-of-the-rbc-meeting/

Alas, FDL has no way to identify posters visually, so you'd have to search for me. (or read the thread if you've got the time)

I think you did us all a service here, Deanie. I am convinced we need to take hard looks at how certain "leaders" have done damage to the American electorate (for starters!) and learn from this. So as to (hopefully) prevent this in future.

Deanie, you'll likely recognize some of what I've said it. But it seemed that the time was ripe for making it clear how astute and wise and also humble is our candidate, Obama. I cannot doubt the man's character as I have personal knowledge of one of the "campaign" shrinks. (not me, by the way)

Folks, let's all learn from Deanie's well-written tale as from a parable. Whatever clinton/bush has done... flee from it!

user-pic

Sorry, emptywheel, I made it look like "emptywell."

Proof-reading.... I need to be more careful!

user-pic

Actually, Desidero, I haven't hated the Clintons. I fought for them, voted for Bill, cheered Hillary on in her various runs. I read both of their autobiographies, enjoyed both, gave copies to family.

When the local, conservative, library refused to stock even Bill's book, I protested that he was a two-term president, and when that didn't work, donated a copy myself. Told them it was not for sale in the annual fund-raising book sale, but for the stacks.

Every week for years and years, I'd go to the "new releases" shelf, scoop up the hate-Hillary books, and hide them back in the shelves.

I've blogged for them and fought for them and donated to them. I'm still on Hillary's e-mail list. When her campaign cranked up, I had only just gotten high-speed Internet and delighted in being able to listen to her couch-chat broadcast.

But your comment that I must "hate the Clintons" is sadly representative of that of Hillary supporters everywhere. You're either for us or against us, and if you are against us, it is because you hate us.

I, for one, am sick of it.

user-pic

From his comment it looks like he never read your post.

To be honest, my dear, your post makes you look like a really, really die-hard Clintonite. For which I forgive you, as you've seen the light now. Though there is nothing like a person who's been a die-hard supporter finally seeing the light and leading a charge in the opposite direction!

Deanie decimates Desidero.

The hatred accusation, also launched against those who critical of Bush over years, really rings hollow and Rovian at this day and age.

Ugh - "those critical of Bush over the years"

Too much elitist Sunday afternoon rosé.

I don't know, Deanie. Down thread a bit, you use one of Maureen Dowd's little cutting phrases on Hillary. Your main post seems like the Clintons were just one disappointment after another for you. Might it have gone better? Sure, but might have gone worse as well. (Remember the 70's? Now those were bummer years). Do we all wish Monica-gate had never happened? Sure, wasted a lot of time and energy and political capital. But you've swallowed both the Republican and Obama spin on the Clintons, and then you seem puzzled by opposition rage. Example - who put the kabash on a Paula Jones settlement? Hillary? I seem to recall it being Ann Coulter, a little achievement she enjoyed bragging about. I can find other examples, but I think if you're honest and look at your post, you'll realize you're in a bit deep. Not saying there's nothing to what you write, but you've framed it in a perfectly contrived Hillary-is-awful framework when I think you realize that nothing is that black-and-white. As Zappa once said, "Suzie Creamcheese, what's gotten into you?" Someone on another post seemed to imply you were really trying to strike up a heartfelt dialogue. I don't see it, but if you really want to chat about what went right and what went wrong in the Clinton years, how we got to "HillaryLand" and what it all means, let's chat.

user-pic

I checked out those links you provided, TheraP, and they're really good, very interesting. I thought the comments on KatyO's post were so good, really substantive and interesting.

And I really liked what you said about Obama's deliberate efforts to keep his supporters and his staff calm in the midst of all this stress.

I keep thinking about the fact that, according to his doctor, his blood pressure at the time of his most recent physical was 90/60. When you think about the fact that blood pressure is especially problematic for black males, especially after the age of 40, then I think that, apart from his overall good health, this is indicative of the fact that he really has remained remarkably serene in this highly-charged superstressful environment. This bodes well for the way he would handle the stresses of office.

user-pic

Maybe the Dalai Lama works for him too!

Meditation is known to lower blood pressure. Or maybe it's the genes. But wow!

Thanks for the info.

Deanie, I was planning to eventually elaborate on the subject of that 90/60, cool as a cucumber character.

Don't worry.

The Clinton's are not going back the White House (or even the Naval Observatory).

It's all over now except for the crying.

Most excellent, telling post. I agree, it's a keeper and should be broadcast. Thanks, Deanie!

It's in a nutshell but a big one. You might see if you can cut it down in size -- a condensed version -- but that may not be possible, and it certainly can't replace the long form. Maybe post to other forums with the condensed version and link to the full deal here?

user-pic

Plutodawg, I'll see what I can do; could be my editors at HuffPo might be interested...

Thanks!
Deanie

user-pic

The Clintons have put us over a barrel, in that if Obama loses due to the accumulated bitterness from the primary fight, they will say Hillary would have won.

Harder to predict is whether they will help at all in the general election. I can't imagine how Hillary could switch to supporting Barack, after the belittling and baiting.

user-pic

Good to see you, Tom. Things seem to be calming down here a bit. And actual conversations can ensue, from time to time.

You're right about the "over a barrel" business. Ditto your second paragraph as well.

"And we fought with and for the Clintons. Boy did we fight. We fought to prevent an impeachment over something we found ridiculous, especially in light of, you know, INVADING A COUNTRY AND LYING TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE ABOUT THE REASONS WHY."

Dear heart, the invasion of Iraq came long after the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It came during the Bush years. If you think real hard you will remember that Clinton left the White House in January of 2001. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003. But thank you for a long and lame post.

Otto, I think you sort of missed the point. She wasn't saying that Bill invaded another country. She was saying that he didn't deserve to be impeached unlike Bush who does deserve to be impeached because he invaded Iraq and lied about it.

user-pic

Spade, you can just plain give up trying to get OTTO to understand simple English, his comments consistently confuse the posts and comments like this.

Excellent, excellent post Deanie thank you. They're two peas in an ugly pod, rotten pod. And has Hillary said anything to her supporters about their demeaning behavior yesterday? Women are claiming sexism yet they call insulted female RBC members!! I see.

And, by the way Otto, you're right Bill didn't invade a country, but he did bomb Yugoslavia. A pretty fucked-up thing IMHO.

Bill didn't invade a country, but he did bomb Yugoslavia. A pretty fucked-up thing IMHO.

I guess that depends on your opinion on ethnic cleansing.

user-pic

And Bill was sent as an ambassador of sorts for the Bush war drum. Even wrote an article in the Guardian in Britian to urge the British people to "Trust Tony's Judgement" and go to war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq3

One helluva great read. One helluva great writer.

Wow.

user-pic

I've been thinking about what Maureen Dowd calls the Clinton "hostile takeover" of the vice-presidency. It's as good a term as I've heard for what we've heard outta them lately (even tho Dowd usually pisses me off).

Call me crazy but I'd rather see him take somebody--anybody--else than Hillary. Esp. after her assassination comments, but also because of the whole thing that, it would be about HER again and about BILL and whether they would "accidentally" sabotage the campaign with gaffes or whatever. We'd still have that whole mindset gripping the campaign.

I just want a fresh start. But like I told my husband--Obama's got a whole lot better campaign advisors than me ha ha, so if they think that it would be the best thing to do, then so be it. I just think that it would be an act of political courage to resist the pressure.

I really don't think she wants the VP job anyway. She's already been a "co-president."

user-pic

Oh, dear God, save us from her as VP!!!

The smart money's on Brad Henry (D-OK) to be Obama's VP.

"And so the nasty set in. As soon as Clinton set herself up as Joan d'Fighter, then here came all the old familiar standbys: snotty surrogates making sensational claims on talk shows, enraged supporters baring their teeth at detractors, Republican opponents launching snide countersnarls, and phony issues getting whipped up by partisans into a frenzy of outrage completely unrelated to the problems at hand.
Only this time, it was the Clintons themselves egging the whole thing on. " Luv it.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, this allows those involved with the HRC campaign, to comfort their conscience in deceiving themselves, that they fought the good fight. Professional victims, in all their splendor, striking the martyr pose.

user-pic

Wow - are you walking around inside my head? You just said every single thing I've thought about all of this and tried to say myself.

This is a wonderful post. It's the truth - we owe them? What? Bill Clinton almost ruined us - we almost lost everything because he wouldn't keep his penis in his pants.

And he's worse now, by all accounts.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

And they really have the nerve to claim the Republicans have already said everything they have to say about the Clintons -

user-pic

Did you actually critically read that article? It clearly states that he has not engaged in any behavior that would be in any sense of the word scandalous or criminal, and yet, that entire article hints that he might have, some think he might or he has, or that maybe he will.

Do you not understand that this is exactly the kind of journalism that was practiced on the Clintons, Gore and Kerry and put George Bush in the White House?

user-pic

Did you read it Bev? We are going to skewer McCain for having lobbyists on his bus writing his policy. How different is that from Bill negotiating trade deals with foreign countries and Hillary being "against" them. Which by extension makes me wary of Hillary's healthcare policies when she takes more money from Big Pharma and insurance companies than any democrat. Are we just supposed to take her at her word that these "lobbyists" will not have any influence? Maybe in the 90's that might have been true, but post white house, Bill and Hillary have been nothing but "if you can't beat em, join em". That is evident in everything they done so far in this campaign. To complain that Bill and Hillary are victims of the same republican smears that they experienced in the 90's, and that they are now actively participating in against another democrat, is the height of hypocrisy.

user-pic

He didn't negotiate any trade deals. That's just stupid. He has neither the authority nor the mandate to negotiate trade deals with any country.

user-pic

That is just a technicallity and you know it. Introducting certain investors to certain countries and adding an air of legitimacy to them to help the deal along is brokering.

Notice how Hillary did not deny that his speaking engagements were in support of a trade deal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tngWyRHIjYU

user-pic

Next Clinton bestseller: How to Destroy a Legacy in Five Easy Steps.