new york times review of clinton's book

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
the times review is pretty brutal, but it doesn't matter to me anyway because i wasn't going to read this book no matter what


The Pastiche of a Presidency, Imitating a Life, in 957 Pages

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

s 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).

Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing ? or establishing ? his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He does a persuasive job of explicating his more successful initiatives like welfare reform and deficit reduction, but the failure of his health care initiative, overseen by Mrs. Clinton, is quickly glossed over, as is the subsequent focus of his administration on such small-bore initiatives as school uniforms and teenage smoking.

Mr. Clinton takes more responsibility in these pages for his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, his lies about that affair and the damage those actions inflicted on his family and his presidency than he has in the past. But he still spends a lot of time ? like his wife did in her book ? assailing right-wing enemies for his woes over Whitewater, the Paula Jones case and impeachment. In the end, he says, what brought him and his wife back together was weekly counseling sessions and their shared determination "to fight off the right-wing coup." He sheds little new light on his relationship with Mrs. Clinton, simply noting that he always admired her mix of idealism and practicality, and that she initially hesitated over his marriage proposal, knowing that "being married to me would be a high-wire operation in more ways than one." In another passage, Mr. Clinton tries to characterize his impeachment fight as "my last great showdown with the forces I had opposed all of my life" - with those who had defended segregation in the South, opposed the women's and gay rights movements, and who believed government should be run for the benefit of special interests. He adds that he was glad that he had had "the good fortune to stand against this latest incarnation of the forces of reaction and division."

In comparison to these self-serving, often turgid attempts to defend his reputation, Mr. Clinton's account of his youth in Arkansas possesses a pleasing emotional directness. His portraits of life in the raffish Hot Springs and the more sedate Hope (towns that would became the polestars of his Janus-faced personality, what political guru Dick Morris once called "Saturday Night Bill" and "Sunday Morning Clinton") may lack the raw energy of his mother Virginia Kelley's reminiscences, set down in her 1994 book "Leading With My Heart," but he does provide the reader with some telling snapshots of his awkward childhood: a fat, self-conscious boy dressed in a new Easter outfit every year ? including, one year, pink and black Hush Puppies and a matching pink suede belt; breaking his leg trying to jump rope wearing cowboy boots; devouring books about Geronimo and Crazy Horse at the local library.

Looking back on those days of living with a violent, abusive stepfather, Mr. Clinton writes like someone familiar with therapeutic tropes. He writes that seeing his stepfather angry and drunk, he came to associate anger with being out of control, and determined to keep his own anger locked away. He writes about experiencing a "major spiritual crisis" at the age of 13, when he found it difficult to sustain a belief in God in the face of his family's difficulties. And he writes about the coping mechanisms he developed ? including learning to live "parallel lives" where he walled off his anger and grief to get on with his daily life.

Many events recounted in this book have been chronicled before ?- not just by the dozens of reporters and biographers who have swarmed over Mr. Clinton's life, but by people close to the former president, including his wife, his mother, his brother Roger, Ms. Lewinsky, and former members of his administration like George Stephanopoulos and Robert Reich. For the most part, the self-portrait that emerges from this book is not all that different a Bill Clinton from the one the public has already come to know: tireless, driven, boyish, self-absorbed and optimistic, someone riven by contradictions but adept at compartmentalizing different parts of his life.

Mr. Clinton once remarked that he saw character as "a journey, not a destination," and at the end of this book, he cites "becoming a good person" as one of his life goals. Still, the seeds of his adult self can be glimpsed in an autobiographical essay he wrote in high school: "I am a living paradox ? deeply religious, yet not as convinced of my exact beliefs as I ought to be; wanting responsibility yet shirking it; loving the truth but often times giving way to falsity." It is only because Mr. Clinton was president of the United States that these excavations of self ? a staple of celebrity and noncelebrity memoirs these days ? are considered newsworthy.

The nation's first baby-boomer president always seemed like an avatar of his generation, defined by the struggles of the 60's and Vietnam, comfortable in the use of touchy-feely language, and intent on demystifying his job. And yet the former president's account of his life, read in this post-9/11 day, feels strangely like an artifact from a distant, more innocent era.

Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" (not over weapons of mass destruction or pre-emptive war), psychobabble mea culpas, and tabloid wrangles over stained dresses all seem like pressing matters from another galaxy, far, far away.
 
Last edited:

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
Stevie

Speaking of liberal media.....maybe you can answer a question I've had for sometime. Why does the Armed Forces Radio (AFR)
daily play the Lush Limbaugh show? It's a Republican attack ad that goes nonstop with extremely one sided views and opinions. It's also not voted on by the servicemen as a choice. It's simply played everyday.

As it's played to our own servicemen in Iraq, it's also played to the Iraqi people that are listening in the area. They get to listen to Lush talking about the abuse in the prisons as nothing more than a 'faternity stunt' type thing. Do we really want the Iraqi people listening to this cracker? Stateside we know Lush is a big fat idiot and simply dismiss him as such, but do we really want the entire friggin' mideast listening to this windbag and judging us based on him? What good can come out of it? And we wonder why it's just a big hornet's nest over there.

Why do the powers that be in our country continue to make mistakes that only hurt our relationships with the arab world? Unreal.
 
Last edited:

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
It is voted on and they only broadcast one hour out of 3. Also by overwhelming vote the servicemen have voted for the whole show be broadcaast, but so far has been blocked. By whom???

BTW are you afraid of free speech, typical of a liberal, don't want to hear anything but their hogwash:mad:
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
"It is voted on and they only broadcast one hour out of 3."
___________

sorry but my sources say it's not voted on by the men.


"BTW are you afraid of free speech, typical of a liberal, don't want to hear anything but their hogwash"
_____________

no, not afraid at all. But you've not answered the question asked, so I'll ask again: what good can come out of Lush's show being broadcast to the arab world via AFR? I can't think of a better way to stick a red hot poker up their azzes. I'd appreciate you answering the question rather than attacking me. Thanks.
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
'Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) announced on Wednesday that he has successfully amended the Defense Authorization bill, adding a provision that calls on American Forces Radio and Television Service to provide political balance in its public affairs programming.'

'Harkin was quoted as saying that the Service is funded by taxpayers of all political persuasions, and therefore it should "make a greater effort to provide balanced representation of political viewpoints on its airwaves."'
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
Once again I' tell you that it is voted on and the reason the serviceman want to hear him is they like what he has to say and they get what is really being said back home and not the liberal slanted crap from the elitist media.
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
"But you've not answered the question asked, so I'll ask again: what good can come out of Lush's show being broadcast to the arab world via AFR? I can't think of a better way to stick a red hot poker up their azzes. I'd appreciate you answering the question rather than attacking me. Thanks."

____________

Please answer ASAP. Thanks
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
It's being braodcast for OUR SERVICEMEN, if the arab world gets it so what and BTW what do want broadcast that we agree with these animals.

I can tell you have never listen to him, just get your info from all the other left wackos that hate him, because if you did you would not be able to say what you have about him.

He has callers that are democrats that don't agree with him, but they know he is not a liar or biggot or a racist. Like Ralph Wiley the espn writer and sports writer, knows as they had a corresponce going for the last year before his death and even though he didn't agree with all of Rush's view, he did respect him.

Do your homework and know what Rush is about instead of listening to the idiots that try to define him.
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
Again, please note in the article in the first paragraph that the decision is made by the pentagon, not the men. The men do not vote. I don't know any other words to try and get you to understand this. They do not vote.

____________________________

Nearly a million American soldiers and Department of Defense staff are able to hear Rush Limbaugh due to the generosity of the American taxpayer and partisan decision making by the Pentagon. A recently published story on Salon.com gives new meaning to the phrase "fair and balanced." Salon reports that Rush Limbaugh spews his blatantly partisan views (he's repeatedly called John Kerry a "gigolo" and has said that Democrats "hate this country," among other tidbits) daily on American Forces Radio. This airing of such extreme and hateful partisan content must stop immediately.

The first hour of Limbaugh's daily radio show is aired at taxpayer expense to provide "a touch of home" to our soldiers. Limbaugh's show, on which he recently compared the torture of Iraqi prisoners to fraternity pranks, called the abuse a "brilliant maneuver" and compared the photos of said abuse to "good old American pornography," is the only hour-long partisan political talk show to be broadcast daily to U.S. troops.

When asked, the director of American Forces Radio Melvin Russell claims that Limbaugh's show is broadcast because of its popularity in the United States. However, if that's the case, why isn't Howard Stern's radio show, which has nearly 8 million listeners a week, also included in the line-up? Russell claims that Stern's show is not appropriate. This type of cherry-picking rationale smacks of censorship, which is expressly prohibited by the network's charter.

In addition, the Department of Defense's own broadcasting guidelines state that Armed Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) news policy "shall be guided by the principle of fairness," "[a]ll AFRTS political programming shall be characterized by its fairness and balance," and "AFRTS [Broadcasting Center] shall provide a free flow of political programming from U.S. commercial and public networks...especially during presidential election years." It seems as though the AFRTS is using Fox News' definition of "fair and balanced" rather than Webster's. Unless another hour-long show on the other side of the political fence is added to the line-up, the current coverage is lopsided, unfair and inappropriate at best, and an example of censorship at worst.



____________________
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Auspice, you ask a very good question. When Clinton used our military Lush wasn't waving the flag and playing Toby Keith so much. Of course I am sure at that time his shows were not being broadcast on Armed Forces Radio.
It is part of the vast right wing media. They actually have so many people believing that there is a liberal media that it is pretty scarry.
Liberal radio couldn't even make a dent. It wasn't because the audience wasn't there. It was because they were not given airspace.
It is a shame but Rupport Murdoch, an Australian by the way, controls so much of American media, and the President, that it is very hard for anything except his Neocon view to get heard.
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
This is getting ridiculous, of course the pentagon makes the final decision, but based on what the serviceman's likes and dislikes are (voting). Yes, the pentagon can veto anythiing it wants, but you ask why and it's becasue Rush is popular with the troops and they in turn allow one hour of the show.

This is the final post on this for me, if you can't understand this I feel sorry for you.

Good luck in your Rush bashing:rolleyes:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Rush whoooo! said the owl. I hear that boy about to get the kick from the old lady. Then he can talk more about his family values.
As for the NYT's I didn't know anyone there new how to read.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Whats this junk as a service gal/guy you vote on what you want to here on service radio. Thats funny never got one of those slips to vote with. Service radio plays what ever and thats what you get. To bad if you dont like it. Turn it off we were told if we didn't like it. Actully we were a little busy to here much at all. Back in the states of course you had more down time to listen. But you had to be dam bored to listen.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Oh noooo! Rush isn't a bigot....hahaha. Ask Donovan McNabb.

Rush is a dick. Why isn't he in prison for trafficking controlled substances?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top