This Isn't War (yet)--Clinton rips into...

[whirlygigspin]

"The liberal power elite I hobnobbed with in Aspen seems terminally short on passion—with one tough-talking, very angry exception: Bill Clinton."

-snip-

"When Clinton took questions, a young man from a technology company who identified himself as chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 in California said he was offended by Clinton’s partisanship. To which Clinton, without hesitation, and with some kind of predatory gleam in his eye, said, “Good!” From there, Clinton went on, with emotion and anger, at a level seemingly foreign to most everyone here, to rip to shreds the motives, values, and legitimacy of the Republicans.

It was all anyone could talk about the next day. People seemed genuinely taken aback (some people kept offering that since it was late at night, in a bar, it didn’t quite count) that one of their own might have violated the accepted codes of lofty liberal behavior. There was a little current of fear at the sudden recognition that testosterone could fuel politics."

read the article here

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/n_9121/

From the August 25, 2003 issue of New York Magazine.

Thank you Mr.President!

[diplomats]

1. Great article!

So this is how the Big Dog really feels! Of course, he has to hold his tongue in public. Love his response to that Bush-Cheney dork.

[w13rd0]

2. That a Bushbot...

...has the NERVE to be "offended" by someone else's partisanship is simply astonishing. Indeed...you're offended? GOOD! Now go home, because I'M TAKING MY COUNTRY BACK!

[Virginian]

6. Offend him some more -

Looks like good ol' WJC will burn that campaign trail in 2004. That gives me hope.

[tlb]

10. It probably gives republicans hope also.

In 2002, as I recall nearly every candidate WJC worked for lost. If you think WJC " burning up the campaign trail in 2004 " would help the party, think about what would be getting the attention. The actual candidates trying to get elected, or Bill. All this accomplishes is it gives the GOP their favorite boogeymen to work off of.

Susan Estrich wrote a pretty good column several months ago I've quoted here several times. This was the one suggesting the Clintons ( both of them ) just shut up and stop using up all the oxygen in the room. Give the candidates a chance.

They won't of course. After all, Susan also asked if the Clintons really wanted a dem win in 2004, or a clear field for Hillary in 08.

[BeatleBoot]

3. Loved It!

And that little pipsqueek saying he's offended by Clinton's partisanship????

A healthy,

G O O D !

from Clinton and BeatleBoot et al



Bush is a Fink and Cheney Sleeps with a Nightlite

[cosmicdot]

4. if it's the Aspen Institute, I'd say it's hardly the liberal power elite

just look at their website to see the folks involved

Aspen trustee Jack Valenti? he's a trustee on the Poppy Library Foundation Board along with a bunch of other cronies like Dick Cheney and 50 some others

Harvard (Corporation) President Lawrence Summers (Harken Oil Company comes to mind and Enron's Pug Winokur) ... Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute ... a raging liberal? don't think so

Trustees include Nixonite and Poppy trustee Frederic V. Malek
(just goggle him and Nixon)

Kissinger is Emeritus Trustee

Robert A. Mosbacher is, too.


http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp

Money comes from such wild-eyed conservatives as Bush supporter
David Koch, another Trustee,who, also, funds the CATO institute

http://www.mediatransparency.org/fundometer.php

Bill Clinton was probably the most liberal person there. Like to have a transcript of what he said - you go Big Dog!

[MoonAndSun]

5. The article talked up real nice about Wesley Clark....

and got some good digs at the bush* rep.

snip>

"The opening panel at the first evening’s dinner featured several estimables, including Madeleine Albright, a Singaporean diplomat, and a token (and not too bright) member of the Bush administration, but everybody on the panel was irrelevant except for Wesley Clark. The vibe was as powerful in the room as if you had a panel of B-listers and then, say, J.Lo. The intensity was of one mind. Clark was the romantic figure here. He held the collective crush.

It was, for this audience, such incredible good Fortune to have not just a real general (the victor of Kosovo) who would be willing to run as a Democrat but a real general who is a genuine brainiac (he was precise and clear and overarching as a panelist, whereas Albright was huffing and puffing, and the Bush official was nearly incoherent). This was what the liberal Establishment was waiting for."


My only disagreement with the author of the article is the gushing over of Walter Issacson, yuck!!! :puke:

[peacetalksforall]

7. Who is this Michael Wolff

Why is he calling this a liberal get-together?
Gimmea break!

I'm happy to read what this guy says about Clinton and Clark, however.

And I'm glad Queen Noor was there.

I don't get Isaacson - he put the right in CNN news when they went CNN turned right - right over the cliff. Didn't he give the order for some decent news deliverers to become stupid, silly, and wildly partisan?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Oh, to read...

A transcript of what Da' Doggie said! Prolly had enough talking points in it to last 3 elections.

Hey Dog! You here, son? Wanna hit us with a few high notes?

You know he's been here. It just makes sense.

[Oilwellian]

9. I loved this part....

"When Clinton took questions, a young man from a technology company who identified himself as chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 in California said he was offended by Clinton’s partisanship. To which Clinton, without hesitation, and with some kind of predatory gleam in his eye, said, “Good!” From there, Clinton went on, with emotion and anger, at a level seemingly foreign to most everyone here, to rip to shreds the motives, values, and legitimacy of the Republicans."

Hehehe...Clinton had to have illicited some gasps from these hoity toitys who have their heads up their asses. I love it. :D