Patterico's Pontifications

12/21/2007

Bill Clinton Says Hillary is a “World-Class Genius”

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 8:30 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary in New Hampshire and he thinks Hillary is a world-class genius:

“Calling the ability to help others the most important quality in a president, Clinton first compared the successes of his administration in creating jobs and other areas to the failures of the Bush administration before finally turning the focus to his wife, a New York senator.

“The reason she ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proven in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people’s lives,” he said.”

Bill Clinton’s speech is a classic illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives:

“Change vs. experience has been a theme of the Democratic presidential race, and Clinton said the two are not mutually exclusive.

Again, he defended himself before praising Hillary Clinton, calling it an oversimplification to say that in 1992, he was the change candidate to George H.W. Bush’s experience. “When I came here, I was 46, but I was the senior governor in America,” Bill Clinton said. “I had worked hard on the very economic issues I said I’d try work on as president for years and years and years.”

Clinton lauded his wife for her early work for the Children’s Defense Fund, her efforts to improve education in Arkansas when he was the state’s governor and her work in the U.S. Senate, repeatedly and forcefully calling her “an agent of change.”

She’s got the right vision, big plans and a proven ability to change lives for the better. Experience and change are only opposed in values if you’re so experienced you don’t have any energy left and you can’t cut it, or if your experience is in fighting change,” he said. “But if you know how to do things, and you prove it over a long time that you can make change in other people’s lives, I think that is a pretty strong recommendation.

Conservatives want government to get out of the way so they can make things happen in their own lives. Liberals want government to make things happen for them. There are risks and benefits to each approach but I, for one, don’t feel so pessimistic or afraid that I want the government to make life’s most important decisions for me.

— DRJ

34 Responses to “Bill Clinton Says Hillary is a “World-Class Genius””

  1. she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people’s lives,”

    Remind me what was world class about that Health Care Task Force or Travel Gate or inability to answer questions.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  2. Hillary was my Senator for six years until I traded up from her and Schumer to Sessions and Shelby. When she ran in 2000, Rudy, had he run, would have cleaned her clock but he got prostate cancer and dropped out of the running.

    We heard all the promises about jobs and revitalization for Western New York, paying attention and listening. Buffalo’s jobless rate went from 8% to 11% with the government as the major employer. Property tax is 4%, sales tax, 9%, income tax 7%, gasoline tax $0.63/gallon. She visited again in her 2006 campaign. As a last act, I voted against her and moved to Alabama.

    If she is a world class genius, she certainly had me fooled. Could someone please point out one piece of legislation that she sponsored? Can anyone provide any reason a freshman Senator with zero military experience should be on Armed Services? Her televised debate concealed her genius flawlessly as did her comments to General David Petraeus. If it could be possible to choose a worse Commander in Chief than Bill Clinton, the democrats seem to have provided us with a half dozen candidates!

    The sad truth is that Chuck Schumer is New York’s best Senator – faint praise indeed.

    arch (a94232)

  3. Our 42nd President said of his estranged wife:

    She’s got the right vision, big plans and a proven ability to change lives for the better. Experience and change are only opposed in values if you’re so experienced you don’t have any energy left and you can’t cut it, or if your experience is in fighting change,” he said. “But if you know how to do things, and you prove it over a long time that you can make change in other people’s lives, I think that is a pretty strong recommendation.

    I’d say that’s a pretty good case for voting for Mitt Romney (who actually has done things) and a very strong case not to vote for Senatrix Clinton.

    The lovely Mrs Clinton was given one, and only one, executive responsibility job since she married Bill Clinton, the makeover of our health care system. She and her team labored for months, in a secrecy of which Vice President Cheney could only dream, and produced a piece of legislation that was so bad that not one single section of it was passed by one single committee or subcommittee of the 103rd Congress, a Congress which had greater Democratic majorities in both Houses, than any of the Republican majorities in the six subsequent Congresses (57-43 Democrat in the Senate, and 258-176 Democrat in the House.)

    As an attorney, she tried few cases and produced no big results; her greatest accomplishment for the Rose Law Form was to bring in clients based on her husband’s name, and lose a bunch of billing records. As a senator, she has no signature legislation and even as part of the majority now, she’s what a European would call a back-bencher.

    There is simply no evidence that she “know(s) how to do things,” save in doing things wrong. Her experience is not one of success, but one of failure.

    Dana (556f76)

  4. Love the positioning of this article with the previous. Here. B.J. Clinton say that Mrs. Clinton is a world class genius.

    In the previous article, Mrs. Clinton show she does not understand the Constitution she as a lawyer is supposed to know and as Senator is sworn to protect. Mrs. Clinton want to deport some illegal aliens with utterly no due process.

    B.J. Clinton thinks his wife is smart. I say otherwise.

    DavidL (8a783f)

  5. This is yet another example of Bill Clinton’s amazing ability to look straight into your eyes and shamelessly lie without flinching or laughing.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  6. Patrick, you are not a single mother. That is the constituency for the liberal vision of the role of government. They are a significant part of the Democrat alliance. The rest consists of government employees and their unions, including teachers. That segment brings out the vote. They also don’t depend on government to make their lives better. They know that they will control it and the lives of all those weak or stupid enough to put them in charge. Additional components consist of wealthy suburban voters who know they will not be subject to the vagaries of liberal government and its incompetent executives. They are powerful enough to rule their own lives, often from the security of gated enclaves in West LA or Greenwich, Connecticut, or multi-million dollar coops on the Upper East Side of NYC. What they have in common is certainty that they know better than all those rubes running small businesses in red states.

    MIke K (86bddb)

  7. Oh look slick willie is lying again and as always with his mouth open

    krazy kagu (2768c2)

  8. Conservatives want government to get out of the way so they can make things happen in their own lives.

    In your dreams.

    We’ve just enacted an energy bill that mandates higher fuel efficiency from Detroit but does not repeal any of the $13 billion oil and gas industry tax breaks. Which of those two industries is making record profits and which is near bankruptcy?

    steve (a41f16)

  9. “World class genius”? I think Bill is unconsciously trying to sabotage his wife. That comment invites– demands–a rebuttal, and the media and blogosphere will provide it.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  10. Mike K,

    I wrote this post instead of Patterico and I agree with you. I think single mothers especially see government support as a financial necessity.

    DRJ (09f144)

  11. We’ve just enacted an energy bill that mandates higher fuel efficiency from Detroit but does not repeal any of the $13 billion oil and gas industry tax breaks. Which of those two industries is making record profits and which is near bankruptcy?

    Which party controls Congress?

    Paul (d07d56)

  12. Which party squashed the repeal of oil industry tax breaks in the original bill?

    steve (a41f16)

  13. Which party controls Congress?

    Paul (d07d56)

  14. If world-class-genius is a qualification for the presidency, somebody quick nominate David E!

    gp (72be5d)

  15. Oh change. Just look at all of her friends who go to change their address to some federal prison! Some to the boneyard as well.

    Pure genius!!

    TC (1cf350)

  16. Back on the first Saturday in April of 1994, as the Clinton health care plan was in the process of going down in flames, the AP ran a story quoting an unidentified Clinton staffer was telling the media that Bill was “the smartest president since Thomas Jefferson.”

    In the pre-Internet world, since the quote wasn’t picked up by Rush Limbaugh or the other handful of conservative talk radio hosts, the hubris of that remark never received wider play, the way Bill’s latest remark about Hillary’s genius has. But both of the Clintons and their support staff have for a very, very long time considered themselves the smartest of the smart, which in no small part is why both Bill and Hillary believe they can say one thing to one group of people and another to a different group and get away with it, because they can fool enough of the public into believing there’s no inconstancies or lies there, or if there are, that the lies are justified because to allow the other side to win would be a far worse outcome.

    John (34537e)

  17. Wile Clinton, Soooper Genius. Nice Ring to it. Have ACME make up the business cards.

    walrus (ac60c6)

  18. Well, Steve? You gonna answer my question in #15?

    Paul (d07d56)

  19. The ‘quality gap’ between the Big 3 and Japan sank Detroit every bit as much as work rules. If it weren’t for fear of UAW organization, Toyota’s plants here would be 100% temporary workforce with no benefits and no retirement plan. That said, GM has a new contract that transfers billions of dollars in retiree health-care costs to the union and establishes lower wages for thousands of factory workers. The U.S. labor cost gap with Japanese competitors is nearly gone. If the Big 3 can’t crack 50% of the U.S. market by 2010, they’ll have no scapegoats.

    In the economy writ large, high profits have not led to high investment and rising productivity has not led to rising wages. Investors should not be the only ones who benefit from leaps in productivity.

    steve (315d72)

  20. Those appear to be good arguments.

    Got any links to back them up?

    Paul (d07d56)

  21. Ever try Google?

    The Detroit Three also are in line to save billions from new labor contracts reached this fall with the United Auto Workers. Those historic contracts shifted the responsibility for retiree health care from the companies to the UAW and established lower wages for thousands of factory workers. Ford said the new contract nearly eliminates a $30-per-hour U.S. labor cost gap with Japanese competitors.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/363/story/234366.html

    steve (315d72)

  22. The ‘quality gap’ between the Big 3 and Japan sank Detroit every bit as much as work rules.

    Really?

    The UAW and its work rules caused the quality gap. From my link:

    First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do. And so, without the UAW, GM would have produced more reliable, higher quality cars, had a better reputation for quality, and correspondingly greater sales volume to go with it.

    Why didn’t they do this?

    Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.

    Then there’s this:

    Toyota makes a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle, while GM suffers a loss of about $1,200 per vehicle, a difference of $3,200 per unit.

    and this:

    Unbelievably, at its assembly plant in Oklahoma City, GM is actually obliged by its UAW contract to pay 2,300 workers full salary and benefits for doing absolutely nothing. As The New York Times describes it, “Each day, workers report for duty at the plant and pass their time reading, watching television, playing dominoes or chatting. Since G.M. shut down production there last month, these workers have entered the Jobs Bank, industry’s best form of job insurance. It pays idled workers a full salary and benefits even when there is no work for them to do.”

    and this:

    Fourth, without the UAW, the cost of employing a GM factory worker, including wages and fringes, would not be in excess of $72 per hour, which is where it is today, according to The Post-Crescent newspaper of Appleton, Wisconsin.

    and if that isn’t enough:

    Seventh, without the UAW, GM would not now have healthcare obligations that account for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produces.

    Keep the last two points in mind; we’ll return to them later.

    If it weren’t for fear of UAW organization, Toyota’s plants here would be 100% temporary workforce with no benefits and no retirement plan.

    What is this, union talking points?

    That said, GM has a new contract that transfers billions of dollars in retiree health-care costs to the union and establishes lower wages for thousands of factory workers.

    Not exactly. From the UAW website:

    The agreement will deliver more than $13,000 in economic gains for a typical UAW member, including a $3,000 signing bonus, two 3 percent lump sums and a 4 percent lump sum.

    So who’s getting a wage cut? That will be addressed later.

    Remember what I told you to keep in mind?

    Active workers will see their comprehensive health care coverage continue, with dental, hearing and other benefits improved. Retired workers will have their health benefits secured by a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA), prefunded by GM with $29.9 billion in cash and other assets. The fund can only be used to pay retiree health benefits, and will remain solvent for decades regardless of the financial condition of GM.

    I though the union was absorbing all the costs! 30 billion isn’t chump change, especially to a company that has bonds below investment grade (junk.)

    The proposed contract will also deliver benefits to current and future retirees, with four lump-sum payments for current retirees, and a raise in basic benefit rates, the 30-and-out supplement, temporary and interim benefits for future retirees.

    More money and benefits!

    I say now, I say, who’s getting a wage cut?

    The new agreement also requires contributions from active UAW members to benefit retirees, and an adjustment in wage schedules to encourage new hiring at GM. Resources that would have gone to a general wage increase for active workers will instead be used to contribute to the VEBA to fund retiree health care benefits, and GM will have the right to hire entry-level workers at a lower wage rate for certain “non-core” operations.

    So UAW members, who get paid in excess of $72 per hour when all the benefits and fringes are counted, got an increae in benefits, just not a general wage increase. Whoopee.

    Then there’s GM’s “right to hire entry-level workers at a lower wage rate for certain “non-core” operations.” What does that mean? I work in a shop as a IBEW member. In union speak, “non-core” means something like janitor or common laborer (move basic supplies from one place to another.)

    So how many does this new contract cover?

    Reuters has the answer:

    The new contract covers more than 73,000 active workers at GM and more than 269,000 GM retirees and 69,000 surviving spouses.

    That’s 338,000 people that no longer work for GM or never did–more than four times the actual workforce!

    The U.S. labor cost gap with Japanese competitors is nearly gone.

    Is it?

    If the Big 3 can’t crack 50% of the U.S. market by 2010, they’ll have no scapegoats.

    Sure about that?

    Then you finish with more union taking points:

    In the economy writ large, high profits have not led to high investment

    If a company wants to continue to stay competitive and make more money, it does. Otherwise, those who run it are fools.

    and rising productivity has not led to rising wages.

    If they want to keep a good workforce, it does.

    Investors should not be the only ones who benefit from leaps in productivity.

    And they aren’t. There’s a reason union memberships are dwindling all over; people are making plenty of money without the unions. That, more often than not, would be the conservatives that are making things happen in their own lives instead of government doing it for them.

    So I was wrong. These aren’t good arguments.

    Paul (d07d56)

  23. Ever try Google?

    Yes. that what I used to refute you.

    Paul (d07d56)

  24. Funny how you forgot to include this in your link:

    But it will be a while before the companies see the full benefit from those agreements, since they had to contribute $49.6 billion into the UAW’s health care trust funds and those funds won’t take over responsibility for retiree health care until 2010.

    Paul (d07d56)

  25. This part of the quote you provided, Steve, didn’t stike me as odd until this morning:

    Ford said the new contract nearly eliminates a $30-per-hour U.S. labor cost gap with Japanese competitors.

    Wait a minute! That’s it?

    The AP coudn’t find anybody to go on record and stand behind that statement?

    I suspect AP tomfoolery afoot. Not only do we have an unnamed source, we don’t even have an exact quote to explain and detail that statement; not from the UAW, and certainly not from Ford.

    Paul (d07d56)

  26. Paul, if it’s anything like the GM and Chrysler contracts, it’s due to handing the pension/medical retirement funds and administration over to the union. Those costs are factored into and are a huge portion of the total per hour labor costs.

    That said, those obligations aren’t going away, and the union isn’t going to kick in the money, so there’s got to be a shuffling-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic quality to that statement. But the car companies seem to like it, for what that’s worth.

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. Obsess much, Paul?

    It’s a landmark deal.

    It shifts $51 billion in potential healthcare liability off GM’s balance sheet, puts new workers on a lower pay scale, freezes wages but guarantees bonuses, promises to keep investing in U.S. production and limits how long idled workers get nearly full pay in a so-called jobs bank. – USA Today, 09/25/2007

    “We’ve got a very, very competitive agreement” – Ford CEO Alan Mulally, http://www.detnews.com, 12/04/2007

    Industry analysts:

    http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/851500/
    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/BUSINESS01/712190349/1014

    steve (315d72)

  28. Steve, your first link is broken.

    Intereting quotes from the second link:

    “It’s a substantially improved world, and I would say our situation product-wise, reputation-wise, labor-cost-wise is probably the best it’s been in 20 years,” Lutz said in an interview at a media event to promote the launch of the refreshed Chevrolet Malibu. “I would say all of the stars are aligning very nicely. … But are the worries over? No.”

    Compared to what GM has been facing, anything that reduces the financial burden is good news.

    “The labor cost gap to the Japanese transplants have been narrowed, but they have not been closed,” by the new UAW contract, Lutz said. “It’s closer than it ever was before. That’s good for a five-minute celebration, but then you say, `Well, now what?’ “

    Nothing in the story gives any context to what closer means. Maybe the gap is only a couple bucks. Maybe it went down to $28 from above thirty the last 20 years.

    The big fear now, Lutz said, is “ill-conceived” government-imposed fuel economy standards at the state or federal level.

    Ooooo, sounds onimous! Let’s keep reading!

    If legislation proposed in California were passed today, Lutz said, GM would have to stop building 80 percent of the vehicles it produces, and something the size of a Saturn Vue small SUV would have to take the place of a Suburban and a compact Chevrolet Aveo would become the company’s midsize car. At the same time, he said, the price would go up.

    California is a blue state run by a energy RINO. No surprise there.

    Besides, I thought you lefties wanted to force the car companies to have higher fuel economy standards. You get what you want, then complain about it.

    Remember who controls Congress if you don’t like the energy bill.

    Your second article is mostly ‘rah-rah, this is a great deal’ without addresing pertinent contract details, like that “Ford said the new contract nearly eliminates a $30-per-hour U.S. labor cost gap with Japanese competitors” unnamed, paraphrased quote.

    Got any more evidence?

    Paul (d07d56)

  29. That said, those obligations aren’t going away, and the union isn’t going to kick in the money, so there’s got to be a shuffling-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic quality to that statement.

    Pablo, exactly my point.

    Paul (d07d56)

  30. The contract eventually will shift a $23.7 billion retiree health care liability into the trust, which Ford will fund with a combination of $13.2 billion in cash and notes, the company said. That amounts to roughly 56 percent of the obligation.

    In the presentation, Ford said it expects a net cash flow benefit of $1 billion per year once the retiree health care costs are shifted to the trust in January 2010.

    The other big savings component for Ford is wages, including the UAW agreeing to a pay structure for new hires starting at $14.20 per hour, about half that of a current worker.

    Up to 20 percent of Ford’s hourly work force can be paid the lower wages, plus all the workers at parts-making plants in Ypsilanti Township and Sterling Heights.

    Ford would use buyouts and early retirements to get existing workers to leave, clearing the way for the new, lower-cost hires.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071115/auto_talks.html?.v=3

    steve (315d72)

  31. Steve, your link in #31 says this:

    DETROIT (AP) — A new contract with the United Auto Workers has nearly eliminated a $30-per-hour labor cost gap with Japanese competitors, setting up Ford Motor Co. to roll out more new products and return to profitability, the automaker said Thursday.

    Marty Mulloy, the company’s vice president for labor affairs, said shifting Ford’s long-term retiree health care costs to a union-run trust and a new lower-tier wage scale will remove much of the gap.

    “I’d say very close but not all the way,” he said during a conference call to explain the landmark four-year deal with the UAW.

    Where are the actual gap numbers? What does “very close” mean?

    Then there’s this line, which you quoted:

    In the presentation, Ford said it expects a net cash flow benefit of $1 billion per year once the retiree health care costs are shifted to the trust in January 2010.

    No context given the cash flow numbers. For all we know, instead of losing $12 billion, they are losing $11 billion. The story doesn’t say.

    There’s a wage reduction on all new hires for Ford:

    Unlike similar deals the UAW reached with Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp., the Ford contract allows the company to pay the lower wage to any new hourly employee. The Chrysler and GM pacts only allow the lower wage for jobs not directly involved in making vehicles or parts.

    Ah, but there’s a catch:

    Before the lower wages can be paid, Ford must take on workers who want to return to the company from factories now in a holding company awaiting sale or closure. About 1,100 of those workers have signed up to return and 5,200 remain, Mulloy said, adding that he could not give a timetable on when the company would begin taking advantage of the lower wages.

    So it won’t be 2010, will it?

    Paul (d07d56)

  32. From the piece:

    “Benefits from the reduced health care liability will begin to show up on Ford’s balance sheet next year, the company said.”

    About GM’s deal:

    “The system allows GM to pay new hires into noncore jobs — generally defined as those jobs not directly involved in vehicle assembly — about half the hourly rate of current employees and provide a slimmer benefits package.

    [Lehman Brothers auto analyst Brian] Johnson forecasts that 11,000 people will take the [voluntary special attrition] package in 2008 with a total of 25,000 current workers leaving by 2011, for a total of $1.6 billion in expected labor-cost savings.”

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/BUSINESS01/712010331

    A little health care analysis:

    “The numbers give the UAW bulk buying power and enough clout to bring costs down, according to some experts. Retirees, now on the same team as the entity paying their bills, will have incentives to live healthier and limit their health-care use. Some observers also say the move will lead the union to step up its lobbying efforts for a national health-care system.

    If the union is successful in its cost-cutting efforts, those reforms likely would spread to companies and other health-care consumers similar to the way health maintenance organizations led to cost cuts decades ago, said J.B. Silvers, professor of health systems management at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.”

    http://www4.vindy.com/content/business_tech/316877741285127.php

    Find any independent, technical or even pro-management review that says this deal is not what it seems.

    I’m not able to spend all day with you, sadly.

    Chop, chop.

    steve (315d72)

  33. Bill Clinton outdid himself again this week when he referred to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a “world class genius” who has made the lives of so many people better. It seems the Clinton camp is going for the shotgun approach since recent attacks on Barack Obama seem to be having a negative effect on Hillary’s ratings. In addition to Bill’s blustering, Hillary is now engaged in what many are referring to as her “charm offensive”. Have you noticed in recent speaking engagements that her voice is softer and her decibles lowered? Attempting to reverse two decades of establishing her image as one of cold, ruthless ambition, she is now smiling and laughing (cackling actually) and generally trying to portray an image of warmth.

    So which is it? Is she the second coming of Albert Einstein or the second coming of Mary Poppins? Is she the tough cookie who can stand up to and take the measure of Mehmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin and Osama bin Laden? Or is she the poor defenseless female who is being ganged up on by her male Democratic rivals, evil Republicans and the Media? Well, she did tell the Daily Kos convention several weeks ago that she had stood up to Bill O’Reilly. That should be worth some points in somebody’s eyes. She then followed it up by playing the victim card when people jumped on her for her disastrous answer to the drivers licenses for illegal aliens question at the Philadelphia debate. Then, after her spokespeople starting floating stories about Obama scheming his presidential bid when he was in kindergarten, questioning whether he was a closet Muslim and beginning his presidential campaign on his frst day in the Senate (in stark contrast to Hillary and all her years of “experience”) with negative results, now it’s Mrs Nice Guy, er Lady.

    Undoubtedly, her advisors believe that there are enough dummies out there who will think, “Gee, she’s not so bad after all!”, that this can change the public perception of her. I, for one, believe that Mrs Clinton’s image is well established and not subject to change. After all, she has worked very hard all these years to show the country who she is. There are few things harder to undo than a “bad jacket”, (bad reputation) as we used to say in law enforcement. Are there really many folks out there who don’t have an opinion on Hillary Rodham Clinton? If anything, it seems that she is losing support from those on the left who see her as too establishment and not prepared to make the drastic changes they want to see. Of course, many of Hillary’s supporters are confident that she is only playing a game to win over moderates and undecideds. Once she is in office, they say, she will do all the “right things”. I think they are correct.

    It seems that Mrs Clinton is walking down the same trail that Al Gore and John Kerry walked when they were running (re-inventing themselves). I can’t see it working. Can it actually be that even Democrats are getting sick of her and all her phoniness?

    And more thing: If anyone reading this thinks that Hillary has changed your life in any way, I sure would like to hear from you.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    fouse, gary c (0598c8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3039 secs.