Bill Clinton Says Hillary is a “World-Class Genius”
[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
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) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:40 pmHillary 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 1:22 amOur 42nd President said of his estranged wife:
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) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:28 amLove 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:10 amThis 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:17 amPatrick, 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:07 amOh look slick willie is lying again and as always with his mouth open
krazy kagu (2768c2) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:13 amConservatives 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:22 am“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) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:25 amMike 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 9:00 amWe’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) — 12/22/2007 @ 9:15 amWhich party squashed the repeal of oil industry tax breaks in the original bill?
steve (a41f16) — 12/22/2007 @ 10:10 amWhich party controls Congress?
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 10:18 amIf world-class-genius is a qualification for the presidency, somebody quick nominate David E!
gp (72be5d) — 12/22/2007 @ 10:21 amWhich industry has an out-of-control labor union strangling it to death?
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 10:24 amOh 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 11:03 amBack 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) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:57 pmWile Clinton, Soooper Genius. Nice Ring to it. Have ACME make up the business cards.
walrus (ac60c6) — 12/22/2007 @ 1:35 pmWell, Steve? You gonna answer my question in #15?
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 1:51 pmThe ‘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) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:35 pmThose appear to be good arguments.
Got any links to back them up?
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 10:26 pmEver try Google?
http://www.buffalonews.com/363/story/234366.html
steve (315d72) — 12/22/2007 @ 11:08 pmThe ‘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:
Then there’s this:
and this:
and this:
and if that isn’t enough:
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:
So who’s getting a wage cut? That will be addressed later.
Remember what I told you to keep in mind?
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.)
More money and benefits!
I say now, I say, who’s getting a wage cut?
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:
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) — 12/22/2007 @ 11:48 pmEver try Google?
Yes. that what I used to refute you.
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 11:49 pmFunny how you forgot to include this in your link:
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 11:56 pmThis part of the quote you provided, Steve, didn’t stike me as odd until this morning:
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) — 12/23/2007 @ 6:48 amPaul, 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) — 12/23/2007 @ 7:19 amObsess much, Paul?
It’s a landmark deal.
Industry analysts:
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/851500/
steve (315d72) — 12/23/2007 @ 7:37 amhttp://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/BUSINESS01/712190349/1014
Steve, your first link is broken.
Intereting quotes from the second link:
Compared to what GM has been facing, anything that reduces the financial burden is good news.
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.
Ooooo, sounds onimous! Let’s keep reading!
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) — 12/23/2007 @ 8:14 amThat 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) — 12/23/2007 @ 8:16 amSteve, your link in #31 says this:
Where are the actual gap numbers? What does “very close” mean?
Then there’s this line, which you quoted:
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:
Ah, but there’s a catch:
So it won’t be 2010, will it?
Paul (d07d56) — 12/23/2007 @ 8:43 amFrom the piece:
About GM’s deal:
A little health care analysis:
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) — 12/23/2007 @ 9:32 amBill 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
fouse, gary c (0598c8) — 12/23/2007 @ 9:29 pmfousesquawk