NYT-OP - and why I no longer think Bill Clinton's Shenanigans are important today

[ViseGrip]

Frank Bruni DEC. 30, 2015
snip....

In American politics, one narrative — one question — eclipses all others: Who will become the 45th president?

Some of the following subplots could greatly influence the outcome of the presidential contest, while others have big implications for the sway and the health of the Republican and Democratic parties.

They’re just a glimmer of what 2016 has in store.

Bill Clinton on the Loose. Until recent weeks, it was almost possible to forget him as presidential-race factor. Then Hillary Clinton, in the last Democratic debate, tagged him as a key economic adviser in any second Clinton administration. Her campaign confirmed that he’d be popping up more often on the campaign trail. And references to his Oval Office misdeeds and the Clintons’ marital psychodrama started to creep back into the news.

All of that was a fresh reminder that his proper role in, and impact on, his wife’s candidacy is unsettled and unclear. He remains both wildly charismatic and maddeningly undisciplined. He connotes both prosperous times and cynical scheming.

There’s no legitimate worry that his presence might eclipse and diminish hers, but the two of them together root her candidacy as much in the past as in the future. So how to deploy and integrate him? Is it controllable?

more at link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/opinion/the-juicy-subplots-of-2016.html?_r=0
****************************
No, I no longer think of these shenanigans. Now when I think of Bill, I think of his signing NAFTA, CAFTA, the end of the GLASS STEAGALL ACT (WALL STREET), COMMUINCATIONS ACT OF 1996 to consolidate OUR media! This is what I think of now when I think of Bill Clinton and how we are all now living in his world. I don't want him near the WH again, nor his Wall Street wife! I no longer find Bill charismatic. I no longer care about Monica and all of the other women, Hillary doesn't really seem to care about. This is not the mentality this country needs today. Hillary meeting in Tampa with her son in laws friend, for a contract on 'deep sea mineral mining rights', is just deplorable. I no longer fall for Bill's smile and charisma.
THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS. Sanders truthiness is what is charismatic today.

[guillaumeb]

1. What counts for me is having principles and standing by them, rather than

chasing principal. And endless speeches for large sums of money. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan, who chased after money as soon as he stumbled out of the White House.

Some amateur analysis here: Both Reagan and William Clinton grew up very poor. Perhaps the endless chasing after money by both is/was a way of warding off poverty.

Or maybe it is the sign of a greedy sociopath who follows no social rules.

[tblue37]

2. "Truthiness" does NOT mean truth. It means a lie or a claim that

has only the superficial *appearance* of truth.

Bernie is about truth., NOT "truthiness."

[CorporatistNation]

10. K and R!!!!

!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. Like Bill, her vote on Iraq War is far in the past

Many say she lost to Obama because of her IW vote. But today, that's such old news, many say she's the foreign affairs expert (even after destabilizing Libya!).

But to be honest, Bill was never her problem, not in 2008 and not now, so this is a WTF article.

[fredamae]

4. I still don't care

about Bills Shenanigans. In the 1990's I felt this was a personal matter between he and his wife....I still do. And as far as the OMG Crowd-"How can you Trust Him now?" Well, I understand that Any human being is gonna Deny an embarrassing situation like this...intially. Politicians and Presidents have Lied about a LOT of crap: "NAFTA will Be Good"and Much Worse and are Still Free.....Take Iraq for instance. Take the Wall Street Crash and the Rush to Rescue instead of punish the crooks......

[ViseGrip]

5. These are the reasons the U.S. will not elect another Clinton. The 'party' shouldn't push this crap.

[fredamae]

6. The DLC was clear in it's mission

No matter who was/is involved there has been a negative shift in People support over the years by and from Gop And Democrats.
20 years ago-I "justified" their (dems) actions...because I still trusted they'd (Democrats) do what is best for the average worker, economy etc. Something felt off..but I - like So many folks then and now - I had family/job/household/grandkids to manage and had little Time to be involved in politics and politicians-so I couldn't put my finger on reasons why I felt so uncomfortable about the direction we were headed.
I heard "some people" explaining it but they were publicly discredited, dismissed, mocked and labeled as extremists. They were largely correct.
This decline has taken decades to get us here and certainly there are followers of the "New Dem Philosophy" but the Dem party really has become the party of the elite, for the elite and by the elite, imo.
I know my grandkids who are now age 20 something (4 of 'em now) have threatened me over Bernie But they quickly learned I Am a Huge supporter. They quieted right down

[SCantiGOP]

7. Do a little research on Bruni

You may not want him as your spokesman to oppose the 1%.

[ViseGrip]

8. Take out Bruni, and the FACTS remain on those policies, and now I'll include the Iraq War vote.

I was just talking about Bill.......

You can take whatever writer/reporter that you like, and insert them "here".

The facts remain. Who gives a fuck who's writing about it this time! People are saying they hate,,,,I hear hate living in this country. They forget how it all happened, and who did what.

This is a good reminder, no matter who writes. Laugh at him all you want. The facts I stated on Bill Clinton remain just that, facts.

[SCantiGOP]

9. Wow, that's a stretch

The article is not dealing in facts, it is an opinion piece. So, yes, the author does matter.

[Oilwellian]

11. Another 1% lover, Frank Bruni

The 1 percent’s most useful idiot: New York Times columnist Frank Bruni says corporations need more power

As anyone who has read an Op-Ed by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni knows all too well, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is not very good at writing Op-Eds.

True, he’s probably better at it than he was at being a political reporter. Then again, that’s an extremely low bar, considering how chummy he got with George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign. In fact, so long as Jeb Bush is never compelled to confess his “love” to him (something W did on multiple occasions) we’ll be able to say Bruni’s work has improved, technically.

Yet even that might be asking too much. Because if he keeps writing columns like his latest — a bizarre paean to corporations that tip-toes the line separating vulgar neoliberalism from a kind of soft-touch fascism — it’s hard to imagine the folks over at the GOP nominee’s headquarters won’t look upon him with deep affection. After all, what kind of Republican candidate wouldn’t love a New York Times columnist who says it’s “fine” if “big corporations … rule the earth”?

Salon