MY LIFE by Bill Clinton (Left Wing NT Times Review)

[ajwps]

Today's New York Times reviews Bill Clinton's new book "My Life" and even though he remains their ideal concept of a US president tore his book to shreds. Note the similarity of the name of the Clinton tomb as "My Life" as compared to Adolph Hitler's book Mein Kampf or "My Struggle."


NYTimes.com > Books

BOOKS OF THE TIMES

The Pastiche of a Presidency, Imitating a Life, in 957 Pages
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

Published: June 20, 2004

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.

In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.

Certainly it's easy enough to understand the huge advance sales for the book. Mr. Clinton would seem to have all the gifts for writing a gripping memoir: gifts of language, erudition and charm, combined with a policy wonk's perception of a complex world at a hinge moment in time, teetering on the pivot between Cold War assumptions and a new era of global interdependence. Add to that his improbable life story — a harrowing roller-coaster ride of precocious achievements, self-inflicted slip-ups and even more startling comebacks — and you have all the ingredients for a compelling book.

But while Dan Rather, who interviewed Mr. Clinton for "60 Minutes," has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American president, "My Life" has little of that classic's unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited.

In fact, "My Life" reads like a messy pastiche of everything that Mr. Clinton ever remembered and wanted to set down in print; he even describes the time he got up at 4 a.m. to watch the inaugural ceremonies for Nigeria's new president on TV. There are endless litanies of meals eaten, speeches delivered, voters greeted and turkeys pardoned. There are some fascinating sections about Mr. Clinton's efforts to negotiate a Middle East peace agreement (at one point, he suggests that Yasir Arafat seemed confused, not fully in command of the facts and possibly no longer at the top of his game), but there are also tedious descriptions of long-ago political debates in Arkansas over utility regulation and car license fees . There are some revealing complaints about missteps at the FBI under Louis Freeh's watch , but there are also dozens of pointless digressions about matters like zombies in Haiti and ruins in Pompeii.

Mr. Clinton confesses that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was "immoral and foolish," but he spends far more space excoriating his nemesis, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and the press. He writes at length about his awareness that terrorism was a growing threat, but does not grapple with the unintended consequences of his administration's decisions to pressure Sudan to expel Osama bin Laden in 1996 (driving sent the al Qaeda leader to Afghanistan, where he was harder to track) or to launch cruise missile attacks against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in 1998 (an act that some terrorism experts believe fueled terrorists' conviction that the United States was an ineffectual giant that relied on low-risk high technology).

 

[musicman]

Bill Clinton can't do the liberals any good now. He is a liability. Even the revisionists who struggled manfully, but vainly, trying to vilify Ronald Reagan, can't rescue Clinton's tragicomic administration from the harsh, unforgiving glare of history. Clinton will now see - close up - the true character of liberals. They're vicious. They eat their own.

 

[OCA]

The only problem there Musicman is for the most part the Clintons run the Democratic party still. He's gonna derail the Kerry campaign sure as hell. It should be fascinating watching for sure.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by ajwps
Note the similarity of the name of the Clinton tomb as "My Life" as compared to Adolph Hitler's book Mein Kampf or "My Struggle."

That means what?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by OCA
The only problem there Musicman is for the most part the Clintons run the Democratic party still. He's gonna derail the Kerry campaign sure as hell. It should be fascinating watching for sure.

Hell, yeah. Sharks in a feeding frenzy.

Here's a pleasant thought: Maybe they'll all destroy each other!

 

[JIHADTHIS]

All part of the plan to derail Kerry, so Hillary can run in 08

 

[dilloduck]

I'm going to love wathcing them walk the fine line of "supporting " Kerry while at the same time preparing for Hillerys' candidacy. This guy is so full of himself he doesn't even realize how stupid he will feel being FIRST MAN. Does the media REALLY need to tell us everything in the book or are we too stupid to read it? This is all old news.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

From left field,

What if the Dems decide that Kerry has zero chance and decide to nominate Hillary instead. She could always claim that she "had" to do it, it was an "emergency"
Unprecedented? Yes. But these are some strange days indeed.......

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
From left field,

What if the Dems decide that Kerry has zero chance and decide to nominate Hillary instead. She could always claim that she "had" to do it, it was an "emergency"
Unprecedented? Yes. But these are some strange days indeed.......

My biggest fear. The Clintons are rich and evil enough to do it. With so little time between the covention and the election she could cruise. She may even hop in as veep to get a head start . On the other hand we may as well have the fight that all democrats want and see what happens.

 

[Annie]

Bet it does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...20.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/20/ixnewstop.html

Bill Clinton loses his temper with David Dimbleby during a BBC television interview to be broadcast this week when he is repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.


Visibly angry: Bill Clinton
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 affair is genuine.

His outrage at the line of questioning during the 50-minute interview, to be broadcast on Panorama on Tuesday night, lasts several minutes. It is the first time that the former President has been seen to lose his temper publicly over the issue of his sexual liaisons with Ms Lewinsky.

The President initially responds to Dimbleby's questions by launching a general attack on media intrusion. When the broadcaster persists with the question of whether the politician was truly penitent, Clinton directs his anger towards Dimbleby.


David Dimbleby
The atmosphere, which was initially warm, then turns decidedly chilly. One BBC executive who has seen the interview, which took place in a New York hotel last Wednesday, said: "He is visibly angry with Dimbleby's line of questioning and some of that anger gets directed at Dimbleby himself. As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained.

"It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President's character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events. Dimbleby manages to remain calm and order is eventually restored."

Mr Clinton agreed to speak to Panorama as part of the publicity campaign for his autobiography My Life.

 

[insein]

Imagine that. A reporter asking the HARD Questions. Not the softball stuff 60 minutes and the NYT have been lobbing Bill.

 

[Annie]

Knew this would happen. That sound is all the air leaving Kerry's coverage:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040621/en_afp/britain_us_clinton_040621173015

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by insein
Imagine that. A reporter asking the HARD Questions. Not the softball stuff 60 minutes and the NYT have been lobbing Bill.

Andrew Sullivan is fisking the 60 minutes interview for the New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan062204

...A very strange response. "Because I could" is not "the most morally indefensible reason" for doing something wrong. It's a trivial, superficial reason for doing something. It seems like candor, but isn't. Clinton "could" have ignored Monica. He "could" have divorced Hillary. He "could" have had an affair with someone who didn't work for him. He "could" have settled the Paula Jones suit years before it became toxic. There are any number of things that a president simply could do. But the reasons for actually doing something are different. Perhaps what Clinton really means is that, as president, he felt so powerful as to be immune. But he cannot believe that. He already had a horde of enemies trying to bring him down and a long history of sexual harassment and compulsion. He knew he couldn't get away with it--or, at the very least, that he was risking a huge amount in doing what he did. So the real answer has to be either that he simply couldn't control his impulses (in which case he opens up the question of whether he was too psychologically damaged to carry such immense responsibility); or that he had become drunk with his own power and felt he could get away with anything (which raises the question of whether he was ethically capable of leading the United States).
.................................................................
...RATHER: (Voiceover) It took years for Mr. Clinton to admit that he was lying in that interview and that he had had a relationship with Gennifer Flowers. Even though the interview rejuvenated his campaign, he writes in his book he was so furious at correspondent Kroft for prying into his personal life that he wanted to, quote, "slug him."

Directly put, how in the world did you ever get Mrs. Clinton to go with you on that television program?

What a craven question after that segment. Rather has already conceded that Clinton directly lied on "60 Minutes." Now Clinton is on the same show and Rather doesn't follow up. The first interview was years before Kenneth Starr or any of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. But it's the same Clinton. And that suggests that his entire excuse--that he was lying because of the nature of his enemies--is phony. Notice also the brilliant parsing: "That allegation is false." It could refer to any aspect of the previous statement.

MORE, Lots MORE

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by nycflasher

"Note the similarity of the name of the Clinton tomb as "My Life" as compared to Adolph Hitler's book Mein Kampf or "My Struggle."

That means what?

The meaning is obvious to anyone who can think with just one neuron in their cranium.

Both Clinton and Hitler were demagogues.

Both fooled most of the people all of the time.

Both were self-centered criminals with no sense of other's pain.
(How many died by the orders of Adolph Hitler and how many of Clintons friends and enemies died because they were ready to give him up and by the orders of Bill Clinton?)

Both found the need to write similar type autobiographical books of innane pettyness, deceit and lies

 

[MtnBiker]

I have no love for Clinton, but comparing a former US President to Hitler is absurd.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by ajwps
The meaning is obvious to anyone who can think with just one neuron in their cranium.

Both Clinton and Hitler were demagogues.

Both fooled most of the people all of the time.

Both were self-centered criminals with no sense of other's pain.
(How many died by the orders of Adolph Hitler and how many of Clintons friends and enemies died because they were ready to give him up and by the orders of Bill Clinton?)

Both found the need to write similar type autobiographical books of innane pettyness, deceit and lies

You're a fu#@$%$ clown, go away. :

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I have no love for Clinton, but comparing a former US President to Hitler is absurd.

Welcome to the mind of ajwps.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by menewa
Welcome to the mind of ajwps.

If you can call it that.

Substitute "bowel movement" for "mind."

 

[dilloduck]

Cmon--he's not saying he killed 6 million jews-- Clinton and Hitler are both wannabes from dysfunctional families who NEED (ed) constant approval and affirmation and are willing to do so at all cost to others.

 

[nycflasher]

Dillo, I'll leave it to you to figure out what his "point" was.
His initial post starts by indicating the STRIKING similarity between the titles of the two leader's memoirs. Now that is insight.