Patterico's Pontifications

11/19/2004

Bill Clinton: Narcissist with a Martyr Complex

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 11:45 pm

By now you’ve surely heard about Peter Jennings’s interview with Bill Clinton:

The former president, a Democrat, said he would go to his grave at peace that, while he had personal failings, he never lied to the American people about his job as president.

Clinton added that he did not care about what his detractors thought about him. Jennings said it seemed to him that Clinton did care.

The former president then rounded on the media, saying: “You donít want to go here, Peter. You donít want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No-one has any idea what thatís like.”

I don’t understand why people are surprised by this. It’s the same damn thing Clinton did when confronted about Monica Lewinsky by a BBC interviewer:

One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask people like me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do, they indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, theyíre not famous, who cares that their lives were trampled. Who cares if their children were humiliated?

I watched that entire BBC interview recently when I flew to England, and I came to the conclusion that Clinton is a pathological narcissist, to the point of having a martyr complex. It’s all about him: he is the saint who has been put upon for his entire life, as he simply tries to make life better for others. The clips I have heard of the Jennings interview merely confirm this opinion.

P.S. More from that old BBC interview, just to remind you how similar it was. It’s obviously a premeditated tactic to personally attack any interviewer who brings up this topic:

And thatís the difference in me and the people that were after me. I actually cared about what happened to those people, and I wanted to be President to help those people. And thatís what the fight was about. Now that doesnít justify any mistake I made, but look how much time you spent asking me these questions, and this time youíve had Ö thatís cos what you care about, cos thatís what you think helps you and helps this interview. I care about what happened to the people that I fought for.

And thatís why people like you always help the Far Right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings . . .

And here is martyr Bill, fighting for the folks who worked for him, and not worrying about himself — because he’s had to deal with people attacking him his whole life:

But I tell you this is quite interesting and when I talk about the parallel lives thing when I was, you know, as a child and you pointed out that.. some of the problems with having parallel lives and I agree with you which I tried to be candid about. The flip side of that is it stood me in very good stead when I had to go through the whole struggle with the Congress and Starr and the impeachment thing because I had been doing that all my life. I worried far more about the people who were working with me, who had never been subject to personal attacks who never had to face the problems in their own lives than I did myself because itís something I knew how to do. Iíd been doing that since I was a boy.

Yeah. I’m welling up myself right now just thinking about it, Bill. I always thought it was especially touching the way you worried about the reputation of Monica Lewinsky — before the blue dress emerged.

I think I should have titled this post: Utterly Ruthless Asshole Still Thinks He’s Victim.

Q&O Fisks Chait

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 11:24 pm

Q&O fisks Jonathan Chait here.

I haven’t taken Chait seriously since his moronic op-ed accusing Republicans of being conspiracy theorists. This from the group that constantly accuses Republicans — in the face of all credible evidence — of having “stolen” the 2000 election.

But if you still take Chait seriously, you might as well read the Q&O post. You won’t any longer.

Dahlia vs. Patterico

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 9:20 pm

Dahlia Lithwick has this bloviating essay on Arlen Specter.

Patterico has this pithy observation on the same topic.

At the risk of sounding boastful, I think my observations are better.

Sentencing Guidelines, and a Question

Filed under: Crime — Patterico @ 6:53 am

I agree with this Dog Trainer editorial that a 55-year mandatory minimum sentence for a guy who sold dope three times — even if he was armed — is crazy.

But I can’t help but ask: where did this particular assertion come from?

That’s more time than he [defendant Weldon Angelos] would have received if he had hijacked a plane, beaten someone to death in a fight, detonated a bomb in an aircraft and provided weapons to support a foreign terrorist organization.

Apparently they are making this calculation under federal sentencing guidelines. Under most state sentencing schemes, I would assume that such conduct would result in a possible life (or perhaps death) sentence. It would here.

Question for any current or former federal prosecutors, or anyone else familiar with federal sentencing guidelines: is this assertion really true? Or is it yet another example of Dog Trainer editors unnecessarily salting up an otherwise sound argument with false assertions?

Carol Platt Liebau

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 6:41 am

Carol Platt Liebau has a new blog. She has been added to the blogroll here. Go pay her a visit.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1866 secs.