I had the pleasure of participating in a One Jerusalem blogger conference call today with Dick Morris.
These are the bloggers who participated: Banagor from Broadsword, Don from Liberally Conservative, Jerry Gordon from Israpundit, Pamela from Atlas Shrugs, Anne Lieberman from Boker Tov Boulder, Michael Illions and Hank Butehorn from Conservatives with Attitude, Omri from Mere Rhetoric, Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit, Kim Priestap from Wizbang, and Chad from GDLL.
Mr. Morris began the conference call discussing Hillary Clinton’s senate reelection campaign. He said she can’t be defeated but says she must do as well if not better than she did against Rick Lazio whom she beat by 12 points. If she wins by only 5-6 points, she will have some explaining to do.
He then moved onto what he thinks will end up being the major scandal of the 2008 presidential campaign: the relationship between the Clintons and the emir of Dubai. Dick details the intimate relationship in his and Eileen McGann’s recently published article, to which the MSM gave no notice whatsoever. Considering how the MSM circles the wagons around Mr. Clinton — the Wallace interview is a prime example — it’s no surprise that Dick’s article was ignored.
After his opening comments Dick took questions from the bloggers. I was unable to catch all the questions, so I will post what I was able to pick up:
Pamela from Atlas Shrugs asked Dick what made him jump to “other side.” His response right out of the gate was that he didn’t jump to the other side. He always thought that Bill Clinton was in some ways a very good president. Dick supported Clinton’s welfare reform (Republicans passed it), balanced budget, and anti-crime initiatives.
There were, however, three points of departure. 1) He hated the way Hillary used secret police to go after Bill’s women. Rather than divorce him, she tried to destroy the women instead. 2) He didn’t want Hillary running for senate form New York. 3) He thought Clinton was a failure on terror. By the way, he told Clinton that his legacy would be weighed heavily by how he responded to terrorism. He failed.
Hillary and Bill are very different politicians. What made Bill a good president (domestic issues) – in Dick’s opinion – will make Hillary a terrible one. She’s a European socialist. She wants to reproduce what’s happening in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc. Although these economies are stagnant, if not down right destroyed, their citizens get free education, free medical care, etc. Hillary thinks this is what America needs.
Another blogger asked what Clinton was trying to do on Wallace’s show. Dick didn’t think Bill’s reaction was planned; he is never “out of control.” Rather, his outbursts are the ultimate form of control. The closer one gets to the truth, the more vociferous Clinton’s reaction. It was not good timing, however. September is supposed to be the month Clinton is on display because of all that he is involved in: UN etc. He stepped on his own story.
One question was about what Sandy Berger was doing in the national archives. Dick said it was pretty obvious that he was trying to get rid of the documents that implicated the Clinton administration before 9/11.
Dick also discussed Hillary’s chances of winning the presidency in 2008. He believes that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. Al Gore is the only one who can stop her. Dick also made a very interesting point about Hillary’s ability to motivate a completely new voting group. He thinks single mothers will support Hillary in droves. These women who have never voted before will come out and vote for Hillary because they think she will help them. Dick also said that African-Americans adore Bill and Hillary and that hispanics voted overwhelming for Hillary over Rick Lazio.
I was the last to ask a question. I commented that recently James Carville said that Bill Clinton’s performance on Chris Wallace’s show energized the Dems, that it infused the them with badly needed backbone. I, however, didn’t buy any of it. I asked Dick how Bill’s outburst on Fox News Sunday could actually help the Dems when the interview did one thing: focus everyone’s attention on Bill Clinton rather than on issues that actually help the Dems. After all, when Bill Clinton takes center stage, it’s all Bill Clinton, all the time, and he sucks everything away from the Dems – it’s cannibalistic in a way. Dick agreed and said that Bill Clinton’s interview will hurt the Democrats for a variety of reasons. First, the interview brings attention back to terrorism, which is always bad for Democrats. Second, it also brings attention to Bill’s temperament. Finally, it sucks all the attention away from Hillary, so now the question is how is Bill going to help get the attention back to her?
****
The American Thinker is on the same wavelength as I am. Check out Noel Sheppard‘s piece called “Clinton Narcissism Killing the Democrats.” Here’s a portion:
A funny thing happened on the way to the midterm elections: everybody started talking about Bill Clinton. Television networks, newspapers, present and former DNC chairmen, Speaker of the House wannabes, left-wing shills, you name it. For almost a solid month, the former president filled the airwaves like a new strain of influenza in the dead of winter.
What haven’t the Democrats and their media minions been talking about since summer ended? Surprisingly, the only issue that can lead them to victory six weeks from now – Iraq.
Doesn’t seem like a very wise campaign strategy, does it?
Read the rest of Noel’s piece.
A funny thing happened on the way to the midterm elections: everybody started talking about Bill Clinton.
No kidding. They’re like moths to a flame. Their favorite subject is the one that kills them every…single…time.
I…did…not…have…sexual…relations…with…that…woman.
Keep talking dems. Keep on talking.
Morris says: “What made Bill a good president (domestic issues) – in Dick’s opinion – will make Hillary a terrible one. She’s a European socialist. She wants to reproduce what’s happening in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc. Although these economies are stagnant, if not down right destroyed, their citizens get free education, free medical care, etc. Hillary thinks this is what America needs.”
Morris has had political axe to grind with the Clintons after he was let go from the Clinton campaign for frolicking with a whore, and letting the whore listen in on his phone conversations with the President.
In addition, Morris has recently come under attack by his own colleagues at Fox for mischarecterizing Democratic positions.
What Dick Morris thinks about anything is about as interesting as mud.
Their favorite subject is the one that kills them every…single…time.
I…did…not…have…sexual…relations…with…that…woman.
You’re right, I don’t think Bill Clinton has a chance of winning in the midterms.
Right over the head, eh mantis?
I dunno, mantis.
I think Bill Clinton’s chances rival those of Dubya winning in ’08.
Lee:
Perhaps Morris is just P.O.’d that he was fired for doing the same thing that Bill did, i.e., allowing his paramour to listen in to sensitive phone calls while in flagrante delicto?
Bill knows that if Hillary gets elected president, she will automatically go down in the history books as the greatest president EVER.
(After all, no matter how badly she runs the country, there is no way that anyone could DARE portray the first female president of the U.S. as anything other than “better by far than any other president we’ve ever had.”)
Bill will be left as nothing but a tiny historical footnote, his eight years in office just an “inconvienience” that Hillary had to endure on the way to her own greatness.
This certainly isn’t the legacy Bill wants for himself.
So watch for Bill to APPEAR to be supportive to Hillary and the Dems, but to secretly sabotage them at every turn. I think this “outburst” was the first occurance of this.
I think Bill Clinton’s chances rival those of Dubya winning in ’08.
Indeed.
Right over the head, eh mantis?
Oh you got me. You’re witticism was far to high-brow for me to grasp. Kudos to you, Mr. Wilde.
Oh you got me. You’re witticism was far to high-brow for me to grasp. Kudos to you, Mr. Wilde.
Oh, that’s okay. Keep working at it. You’ll get it eventually. Even a blind sqirrel finds a nut once in awhile. You ever heard that one, Slick?
I think what happened on Wallace’s show was the direct result of the show’s own stage management of former President Clinton.
Clinton came on with the promise that at least half the interview would be spent discussing the Clinton Global Initiative, a topic about what he is trying to do now, and instead of being met with a standard guest warm-up question, or a question about the initiative was met with a negative hardball question about his administrations’s attempts to fight terror which were hamstrung then by the very critics now who attack it.
“Why didn’t you do more to put Bin-Laden and Al Queda… Why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?”– Chris Wallace
Wallace’s question should have angered Clinton a lot more than it did. Who in God’s name is asking President Bush this day after day. After all, during the Clinton Presidency, Clinton was beset by critics telling him hour by hour that his interest in Middle East terrorism was a mere distraction, wagging the dog was the popular term, a strong incentive to drop the whole matter. But he did not drop the matter. Instead, he made the stunning revelation that he did his best to have Bin-Laden killed.
The Bush camp on the other hand, made the gross and terrible error of believing their own rhetoric without due dilligence, without listening to those once they assumed office and by following misquided policies after 9/11. Bush has had far more time with the complete support of the nation rather than a Congress full of critics to pursue his anti-terrorist agenda, and he has failed and continues to make things worse, and less safe, and Clinton and the Democrats know that.
Keeping the threat of terrorism in front of the American people this November may backfire for Republicans. The fear factor worked well for some time, but it is their war now, their unfulfilled mission, and their strategy that has made us much less safe rather than more safe.
Given this, Clinton’s response to Wallace should have been hardly surprising. Now Clinton has a clear brief to respond directly and publicly to this issue, terrorism, thanks to Wallace, without regard to old news Lewinski.
Let’s not miss the real battle here. If the Dem’s win back the house the odds of a Bush impeachment are high even if the odds of a conviction are low, that is the sound and fury behind the harsh portrayals of Clinton’s response in the media. That leads up to the Presidential election in ’08, whether Bush will have found an effective strategy by then will be the difference between many Americans granting Republicans a Deal or No Deal.
That Bush has failed in Iraq is no joke. Neither is the fact that all Americans have to work together for all to be safe.
Harsh personal criticisms even of the politicians you have come to intensely dislike politically, or have a personal grudge against must now take second place to finding answers towards the peace and safety of our citizens and country.
The politics of personality destruction used in the media today must end by the pundits. For as Ben Franklin once said…
“..surely we must all hang together now, or we will surely hang separately.”
Peter, Top Political Satirist and Spell Wrecker
The Peter Files Blog of Comedy, Satire and Commentary
Peter, I can’t tell if your whole post was satire or not.
Unfortunate that this blog entry makes several references to “suck” or “sucking.” When using this in relation to Bill Clinton, what’s the first thing that jumps to mind? Heh.
Sounds like Alan Colmes disagrees with Morris. What a shock, Lee! Who woulda thunk it, huh?
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, even Pee and Mantick, is more credible than Bill J. Clinton. Please.
Considering how the MSM circles the wagons around Mr. Clinton — the Wallace interview is a prime example
Really? All I’ve seen in the MSM is references to “outburst”, “angry”, “combative”, etc. Please show how this is “circling the wagons around Clinton”.
Dick agreed and said that Bill Clinton’s interview will hurt the Democrats
Yes, of course. Because everything is always good for the Republicans.
Brian, Greenwald and mediamatters ain’t gonna get it done here.
The wagons were circled when no one asked Clinton for a response to the difficulties he had with the premise for the ABC movie; only Fox had the balls to.
Your inability to see that speaks volumes.
Grab another latte, slide into your Volvo, and get back to your NY Times indoctrination.
LOL! I just read Morris’s column about the Emir of Dubai. If that’s “major scandal”, then Michael Moore looks well-researched by comparison. Let’s look at Morris’s path of connections:
emir of Dubai –> Bill Clinton –> former press sec. Joe Lockhart –> partner at Glover Park group –> hired MoFo –> partner Raj Tanden –> partner’s sister Neera Tanden –> Hillary Clinton
Morris says: No six degrees of separation here.
Yep. I count seven degrees of separation.
Brian, Greenwald and mediamatters ain’t gonna get it done here.
Of course not. Because you’d rather ad hominem dismiss the facts than respond to them. Of course, those links cite the NY Times, LA Times, NBC, Fox News… do those “get it done here”?
The wagons were circled when no one asked Clinton for a response to the difficulties he had with the premise for the ABC movie; only Fox had the balls to.
Your inability to see that speaks volumes.
The comment that I responded to was specifically about the media’s response to the Wallace interview. Your ability to change the subject speaks volumes.
Everyone go read Ann Coulter’s new column. She took Slick Willie behind the barn, tanned his hide and nailed it to the barn door like a tightly streatched coon skin.
Democrats are in a total panic. They had the election won in Nov, they thought, and the sky caved in on them. Not from anything the republicans did, but from their own stupidity. They can’t leave well enough alone and continued the lying until the wagon broke down. Slick Willie’s break down on national TV sure revealed him for what he is, nothing but an empty suit.
I alway remember what my dear departed mother said 50 + years ago. Anyone that will lie to you will steal from you. She must have saw the democrats of the future.
Well Brian you seem surprised that people don’t accept Mr. Puppeteer Greenwald and some far left website as gospel.How about if I cited an Ann Coulter column as an example of pure objective truth? She cites the NY times also.The MSM continually harping on Clinton’s outburst IS circling the wagons to defend him.The real story is Clinton’s non-effective response to terrorism and his lying attempt to cover that up.If the media wants to dredge up Bill Clinton and ask him about his presidency that’s what they should be questioning.I doubt any story describing him as “angry” and “combative” when discussing his record on terrorism is especially hard hitting.A president should be angry and combative when his wonderful record of terrorist squashing is maliciously challenged shouldn’t he?
You blew it. You didn’t have The Muslim Question in on this. What were you thinking?
The MSM continually harping on Clinton’s outburst IS circling the wagons to defend him.
Wow. The very definition of delusion.
Ah Yes, words of wisdom from Dick “The John” Morris who forgot he was the john and became the whore. He’s credible alright.
He’d sell his soul for a one night stand.
Enough said about him.
Morris has had political axe to grind with the Clintons after he was let go from the Clinton campaign for frolicking with a whore, and letting the whore listen in on his phone conversations with the President.
Is this an attempt at satire ? You expect us to believe that Bill disapproved of ‘frolicking with a whore’ ? Come’on, that’s just silly.
Yes, we all know Slick never consorted with whores.
And, we know he is the LEAST credible past-President out there, besides old Jimmah, of course.
Brian, Xennady kicked your little pansy ass. I like it.
Hey Mitchell I appreciate your comment-thanks! Brian,Let me try again.Bill Clinton-former president of the US-blew up on national television when asked a simple question.Do you really think the MSM can completely ignore it, or claim it didn’t happen? It happened on Fox-obviously they can’t stop Fox from talking about it.They HAD to say something about it and they certainly weren’t going to actually dig up and hi-light what Clinton and Co. actually did to fight terrorism in the 90s.Hence the stories about the “combative” Clinton to explain what happened.If you don’t watch Fox you’ll never know he was “combative” in dodging the question instead of defending his record.
If Wallace had asked something entirely inappropriate, such as “Mr. President, how exactly did you have sexual relations with that women,” or words to that effect, then perhaps an outraged reaction makes sense.
Being outraged about a legitimate question such as this makes him look foolish, and defensive. That’s why his Press aide was trying to get Fox to cut the cameras.
He didn’t think it was going over so well, apparently.
he was “combative” in dodging the question instead of defending his record.
Well, you can’t blame the guy. Sometimes ‘offense’ is the best ‘defense’. Especially when your record is indefensible. I mean, when it’s well-known that you spent your time in the oval office having your knob polished, and then having to lie to American people (I did not have sexual relations…), and then having to think of a definition for ‘is’, and then the impeachment. Crap! And then that smirking little shit Chris Wallace having the temerity to ask what you did. Hell, I’m exhausted just thinking about it. When did he have time to take a piss, let alone go after Osama bin Laden? FNC did a hit job awright. Imagine asking a former president a hard question. Nerve! Who do they think they are?
He’d sell his soul for a one night stand.
Yeah. Kinda like selling the presidency for a Cuban and a blowjob?
Reading Walt Whitman’s famous “Leaves of Grass” and worrying over how to give it to Lewinsky as a present without Big Momma finding out must have taken up alot of his time.
And what to do with The Cigar!! Oy Vey!
That’s what I’m talking about, Mitchell. Who wouldn’t have broke on Wallace’s show? Dang! If he wasn’t such a lying, adultering scumbag, I’d think he was a helluva man.
Thought bubble above Clinton during the interview:
So, there I was with Osama in my sight, and I took the cigar…No, no…That’s not right. Wow. check out the hooters on Jane Skinner…Focus, man, focus! Oh yeah, so, I did more in 8 years than they did in 8 months…Oh crap, that’s not right…I wonder if those are real. Is it hot in here? Poke your finger at Wallace…POKE YOUR FINGER AT WALLACE!
“Poke my finger, where??? Where is Skinner?”
Mitchell and Clay…
I think I get it. You guys are like good cop/bad cop…or something like that. What ever it is, I like it.
Why don’t you two brains drop by our blog and leave some comments and stir the already hot pot?
Oh how I wish you would (Line borrowed from Tom Hanks in “You’ve Got Mail”).
We take a crack at humor over there. We’re only six months old and already we’ve pissed off half the world. That should count for something, right?
Check out the archives. Especially for Shlomo and Lawrence of Bessarabia.
Hillary likes hand-cranked marital devices while Bill likes battery powered…(inside tip).
It’s true. the-muslim-question.blogspot.com (THE MUSLIM QUESTION) overlaps interests with you. TMQ is smart, funny, gutsy, and it’s the only blog so far to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, but Arafat was a Nobel Laureate, so it’s value has been cheapened somewhat.
“Yeah. Kinda like selling the presidency for a Cuban and a blowjob?”
And what’s wrong with that? The last time I checked you can’t die from a BJ, and I love a good cigar every know and then.
Oh, but that’s right, we have a real man of rectitude, courage, and virtue in the WH now. No more coke snorting, or cheeting to get grades. He is born again, and has found religion. Thanks to god’s grace he has become the leader of the free world.
Hell, it kinda makes me want to go find a good ole time revival meeting and sing some negro spirituals.
Hell, it kinda makes me want to go find a good ole time revival meeting and sing some negro spirituals.
Well knock yourself out. You and Slick can sing “Nobody Knows” together. Go ahead and nuzzle in his crotch and sing in his microphone after your moment together. You can pretend your Monica…and hell, he can too.
The last time I checked you can’t die from a BJ
I’ll let you remain the expert there. Don’t forget the mouthwash to kill the taste in your mouth.
Bwa-hahahaha! Bitch.
No no Clay, you are confusing Bill with your sister. That was her remember? Don’t you remmember? it was a
double date; you were with your cousin, and I was with your sister. Remember now?