|
|  | | | | Hello, Blackpool! Clinton World Tour Hits England | | | | | found on BBC News
written by holgate, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Thu 3 Oct 11:16am | | | | |
 |
This was not a political speech, but a cross between a revivalist meeting, a pop concert, and Oscars night. The Labour delegates were star-struck, moon-struck, Bill-struck. It was brilliant, and quite shameless, a reminder of why Bill Clinton, a man now without political power, is still the best politician in the world - though very far from being the best man.
"American Plasticians can be forgiven for not knowing that Bill Clinton gave a barnstorming speech to the UK Labour party conference in Blackpool," holgate writes. "While Al Gore's recent speeches have been picked over (and, some say, grossly misrepresented) by the pundit class, and editorials by long-retired politicians seized upon by all sides, Clinton's dig at the 2000 election ('[it] was so close in America that they won it fair and square 5:4 at the Supreme Court.') received nary a peep back on his home shores, where the speech barely registered in the main papers, let alone the network news. Nor did his barely-veiled criticism of White House unilateralism, expressed through unqualified support for the different emphasis of Tony Blair's policy towards Iraq.
| |
| | a pre-emptive action today, however well justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future... I can tell you that as an American, and a citizen of the world, I am glad that Tony Blair will be central to weighing the risks and making the call. For the moment the rest of us should support his efforts in the United Nations and until they fail we do not have to cross bridges we would prefer not to cross.
Like the gathered audience, which gave ol' Horndawg a two minute standing ovation, British commentators of all party persuasions swooned over the speech as 'seductive and shameless', a political tour de force. (Apart, of course, from the usual suspects at the Daily Mail. And Christopher Hitchens,) It gave the lie, at least, to claims of incipient British anti-Americanism. (Expect a similar reception for Bill C. in 'America-hating' Berlin, too.) A pity, then, that the US media appears reticent to remind the public of Clinton's undeniable mastery of the art of rhetoric (we can argue about the substance) and overlooks some of the most significant criticism of Bush's foreign policy to come from an American politician."
|
| | |
[ < return to the discussion ] |
| | | | | | | | 16. Re: Corporate sponsorship or British press bias? | | | | by NH4 |  | | | at Thu 3 Oct 9:10pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
Do you think McDonald's pays him for his "endorsement" directly, Elforman? Or is it one of those Tyson deals, where Hillary comingles the Clinton family nest egg with McDonald's in its cattle futures dealings and unexpectedly makes out like a bandit?
Either way, the man could be angling to replace Ronald McDonald as a symbol of the company by the look of things.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 5. The Daily Mirror is all over Clinton. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Thu 3 Oct 12:08pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
So much so, he might want to start referring to it as "The Daily Monica". Obviously, the man has gotten beyond determining what the word "is" means. He obviously doesn't appreciate the meaning of the word hypocrisy however: "Military action should always be a last resort." Tell that to anyone who caught a bit of shrapnel when you launched the cruise missiles on the aspirin factory in the Sudan.
Of course, Christopher Hitchens has another view of Clinton. A much less charitable view of Clinton, nonetheless. He reasons that the real reason for Clinton's invite to Blackpool was to counter the "Blair as poodle" charges.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 17. Re: The Daily Mirror is all over Clinton. | | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 3 Oct 9:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
That's certainly one of the reasons, Mayor Bob. But perhaps another is that it never hurts to be on good personal terms with a man who may be married to the President of the United States come January 2005.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 23. Re: The Daily Mirror is all over Clinton. | | | | by chatsubo | | | | at Fri 4 Oct 1:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
The Daily Mirror is trying to reposition itself as the crusading tabloid of the British left (with a small 'L'), much like it was in the 1960's under the legendary editorship of Hugh Cudlip.
Whether this is a genuine political conversion by its editor Piers Morgan (who in previous years was quite happy working for the Murdoch papers), or a savvy marketing move designed to both politically outflank its rival The Sun (centre-right supporter of Tony Blair) and meet the public's new appetite for real news in the wake of 9/11, is anybody's guess. (The paper is also a big cheerleader for Gordon Brown, so maybe Morgan is aiming for a knighthood once Tony steps down for Irn Bru)
Personally I think its done an excellent job of presenting an intelligent tabloid. I could have never dreamed ten years ago that I would pick up a red-top and read columns by Christopher Hitchens, John Pilger or Jonathan Freedland.
I don't agree with all of its politics, but it is refreshing to find a tabloid editor who doesn't assume that the only thing the average man in the street cares about is football, beer and tits.
Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. Refreshing | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Thu 3 Oct 12:44pm | score of 1.5 modappeal | | | | | | |
I just read the transcript. God that was a pleasant flashback, hearing an American President speak with eloquence, intelligence and clearly in full grasp of complex global political and economic and environmental realities. I've heard Clinton speak in person twice, and the man is brilliant. When he was pres. I could rest easy there was someone well intentioned and much smarter than me manning the helm.
Oh, I want those days back. I shutter everytime I hear President Fool stumble on mono-syllabic words and fall apart entirely any time he strays from the teleprompter.
I'd always thought it be an ego boost to be able to say I'm smarter than the President of the United States. Now we've got Bush and turns out it's not an ego boost, it scares the shit out of me!
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 11. Re: Refreshing | | | | by profwhat |  | | | at Thu 3 Oct 1:57pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
hearing an American President speak with eloquence, intelligence and clearly in full grasp of complex global political and economic and environmental realities
He always has spoken well. He never did take action well, though. Here's an example. It's ironic that he talked about Rwanda in his speech (he tells about "Hutu and Tutsi children dancing together in a ceremonial dance for me for what the governor said was the very first time since 1994.") This sounds cool and good, until you remember that in 1994 Clinton, through his then-ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, opposed the addition of troops to the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda and even opposed leaving a skeleton crew. Apparently he wanted to avoid a quagmire. Clinton later travelled to Rwanda in 1998 and apologized for this.
Given this guy's poor record at preventing violence and his poor record at the job of commander in chief (during his one major conflict, Kosovo, he insisted that either Clark or himself personally approve every target list), I'm glad that he isn't running things now.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. Re: Refreshing | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Fri 4 Oct 5:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
Given this guy's poor record at preventing violence and his poor record at the job of commander in chief (during his one major conflict, Kosovo, he insisted that either Clark or himself personally approve every target list), I'm glad that he isn't running things now.
If I recall, we were successful in Kosovo, and didn't lose a single life on our side. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the only time in human history that that has happened in a war? How exactly does that equal "Poor job as commander in chief"?
The big fiasco people tag him with, Somalia, was a mess that Bush Sr. and Colin Powell created and washed their hands of. But nevertheless, we were successful their too if I recall, with FAR fewer American casualties (19?) than Somali (hundreds).
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 15. Re: Refreshing | | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 3 Oct 9:04pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
"I want those days back," too, Ernest, but not because I am under the impression that a good speech makes a good President, or because I think that President Bush is any more in charge than Ronald Reagan was during his second term.
For whatever reasons, the economy was hot in those days. Maybe Clinton kept the focus on the economy, maybe he pursued policies which helped, maybe he was just lucky: I no longer care. What I do know is that since Bush took over, the focus has been off the economy, and the economy has caught the flu. My personal economic situation had never been better than it was in 1999, yet by this year I was facing bankruptcy. My situation can be multiplied by hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.
And what does Bush offer instead of an economic focus? War, and rumors of war. Don't worry about how much you're suffering because the economy sucks, just pretend that everything is really Great and remember that we are all suffering equally -- well, except that some of us are suffering more equally than others.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: Refreshing | | | | by msfeld | | | | at Sat 5 Oct 5:58am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
A war with Iraq will bankrupt the USA. Some estimates have it costing the USA 10-15 billion per DAY. We were lucky with the first gulf war, our allies pretty much picked up the tab. Now we don't have allies, and I'm not sure the government has any idea where the money will come from, especially if they won't raise taxes.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 32. Clinton and the West Wing | | | | by mb | | | | at Fri 4 Oct 3:16pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | | | | | |
Everytime I listen to or read a speech of Clinton's I get the same kind of sad, wistful feelings that overcome me while I watch West Wing.
It's not that I agreed with everything Clinton did while president; posters here certainly bring up plenty of reasons not to romanticize his presidency. But the striking difference between him and Dubya is that EVERY time Bush opens his mouth I cringe. EVERY time I read a new policy, whether it be on Iraq or on the economy -- I cringe. Nearly every time I come across anything about the current administration in the news I am filled with disbelief, frustration, or anger.
These are not feelings I was much accustomed to during the Clinton administration. So maybe I am romanticizing it . . . pretending that it was better than it was. But it was was certainly better than it IS.
And everytime I read what he has to say, much like for that hour during West Wing, I can pretend that our leaders are at least intelligent and that the majority of their politics match my own.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 37. just saw it on cspan | | | | by lopati | | | | at Sat 5 Oct 10:55pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
and you too can watch him in all his oratorical splendor here! i've always liked his speeches, like he always hits on the 'our common humanity' theme, mixing it up now and then (i thought it was pretty weak this time around :)[btw, the iteration i like best was when in some interview he goes, "the most important fact of life is our common humanity, and its greatest tragedy is our failure to recognize this," which i always thought was pretty profound! (altho i also know, he knows i know it :)]
the best part of the speech i thought was his elucidation of dichotomies that people seem resigned to and settle for, and exposing them as not only failures of the imagination, but patently false from a thirdway perspective and trackrecord that...[goes] beyond the false choices that paralyse and make boring political debate. Going beyond neglect and entitlement to empowerment. Refusing to be told we have to choose between what's good for labour and good for business and say the best thing is if both do well. Refusing to be told that crime policy has to be about prevention or punishment and saying what works is both. That education has to be about excellence or equity; that health care has to be about access or quality; that environmental protection can only come at the expense of economic growth. All these things are factually untrue, but they dominate, control and paralyse the politics of countries all over the world and then he goes on to implicate conservatives of this small-minded and narrow vision of the world, characterizing them as the party of "ideology and power" rather than the one of reason and results (and accountability to the people).Our [thirdway] politics are based on ideas, and a desire to increase opportunity and to strengthen community. And we know we are not always right, even though everybody hates to admit that, we are not. So we have to operate on the basis of evidence, and be open to argument. Their politics is based on ideology and power, and they don't like evidence and argument very much. as for why the speech was so resoundingly received, i think it's just cuz it's nice having the former leader of the free world acknowledge the fears of and articulate a defensible position for progressives that have been made to feel increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. basically, clinton demonstrated leadership :) i guess it's just too bad he's not actually a leader (kind of his legacy!) or that there's not a more legitimate person in a position of authority with the ability to rally people around progressive causes.
temp sig: War doesn't determine who is right, war determines who is left.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
|
