Christopher Hitchens wonders why anyone would want to once again place the ongoing and corrupt soap opera that is the Clintons back at the center of our national politics.

What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book >No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."

Poor Bill. All those people always lying about him.

[Update a few minutes later]

Is Obama the new Bill Clinton?

In some of the most unfortunate ways, the Barack Obama phenomenon — that swell of adoration that lifted him up in Iowa to practically deposit him in the still-occupied White House — is cut frighteningly close to the Clinton mold. In particular, the fetishization of image and lack of conviction are all too familiar. Forget the talk of Bill Clinton having been the “first black president.” If Barack Obama wins in November we may best understand the coming age by thinking of him as the second President Clinton.

I first became suspicious of Obama’s charms when I found myself praising the Illinois junior senator without so much as a data point’s worth of evidence. “Unlike Hillary,” I heard myself say, “Obama at least believes in something.” It occurred to me, at once, that I had no sound reason for uttering this. And I was disturbed. The effortless oratory; the vast, glassy smile; the whole kinetic promise of the boy wonder rising — I’d been suckered.

Not me. Of course, I was always immune to Bill Clinton's supposed charisma as well.

Also pointed out are two key vulnerabilities that a smart Republican (if there is such a thing) could attack:

In this Wednesday’s New York Sun, Robert Samuelson singles out Barack Obama for failing to address the coming income transfer from young to old that will leave today’s American children overtaxed and underserved. Obama is not alone in having no plan of attack, but as Samuelson observers, “The hypocrisy is especially striking in Mr. Obama. He courts the young, promises ‘straight talk,’ and offers himself as the agent of ‘change.’ But his conspicuous omissions constitute ‘crooked talk’ and silently endorse the status quo.”

But there’s much worse. On July 20, 2007, the Associated Press reported “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.” Forget the immediate depravity of such a pronouncement. The most disturbing and, not coincidentally, most Clintonesque aspect of the story is that Obama’s statement came a week after the New York Times’ landmark editorial calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, genocide notwithstanding. This deference to popular opinion over humanity represents Clintonian moral calculus of a chilling potency.

I continue to believe that a Democrat in the White House next year is by no means a lock, regardless of who the nominee is. People forget that Clinton himself would never have been elected in 1992 without the help of Ross Perot. And he never got a majority of the popular vote.

No matter who the evil leader is, there will be followers. The followers can, somehow, justify the excesses of their leader as necessary or right given some set of circumstances.

I spent my teen years around some rough types. I've never understood the blind obedience and out right blindness to these kinds of leaders. It boggles my mind that anyone can follow the Hitlers, Stalins, Fred Phelps, or even the Clintons. There is a reason why I didn't become a biker with a club affiliation, I don't do blind obedience.

The Clintonistas are just Hell's Angels in suits with limos, instead of Harleys.

Well, Hillary has 35 years of 'experience' doesn't she? :

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all/#page_start

Rand, I think you may be on to something. Trust the Democrats to totally squander a 20 point advantage.

Bush didn't get a majority of the popular vote either. Which makes him no more legitimate than Clinton was, and arguably less so - effectively elected by the courts after a very close result in one state.

Bush didn't get a majority of the popular vote either.

He did the second time. Clinton never did. In the first election, Clinton only got 43% of the vote.

Folks

Our Boy Fred is surging.

Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee.

From Rasmussen reports.

Go Fred Go!! Go Fred Go!! Go Fred Go!! Go Fred Go!!

No Fletcher,

He was elected by the Electoral College, like ALL Presidents. The Supreme court had to step in and say enough with the hanging chad. The results had already been legally certified.

"He was elected by the Electoral College, like ALL Presidents."

Indeed. Alas a point lost on so many.

Obama as Clinton? Stop worrying about that...what I'm afraid of is Obama as Jimmy Carter (II)!

No, Huckabee is JC II.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the last Democrat to get a majority of the popular vote was LBJ.

And most of the USA's electoral college members do what they are told to by popular vote, right? In fact, some states have state laws prohibiting the casting of "faithless" votes by that state's electors.

This sounds like the system in the UK to some extent. MPs are elected by popular vote in their constituencies, and then said MPs decide which party is going to have executive power - by a vote among them. There obviously are differences, but they are subtle indeed. Even the number of electors is extremely similar.

And most of the USA's electoral college members do what they are told to by popular vote, right? In fact, some states have state laws prohibiting the casting of "faithless" votes by that state's electors.

Yes. What's your point? It's still representative democracy (a Republic). The Constitution states that the state legislature shall determine how the electors are selected. If a state chose, it could do so with card games.

"In fact, if I remember correctly, the last Democrat to get a majority of the popular vote was LBJ."

Not quite Mike. Jimmy Carter managed about 50.1% of the popular vote in 1976. The next best performance since then was Clinton in 1996 of about 49.2%.

Rand, from what you are saying it would appear that, from the point of view of who actually runs the country (the Queen, although head of state, is a figurehead) the UK is a republic.

"If a state chose, it could do so with card games."

Or just sell the electors' votes. Wait...

It really doesn't matter. The problem remains; any system that has elections of any sort in the process leads to the possibility, and indeed probability, that the best candidate for the job doesn't get it. I don't have any answers for this problem; neither do you and neither does anyone else. In particular, tough decisions that need taking don't get taken, because the incumbent wouldn't survive his term never mind get re-elected - and the overwhelming majority of politicians care more about gaining power than what (other than sticking their noses in the public trough) they would do with it if they got it.

There are many Americans, I'm sure, that would make better presidents than any of the candidates. They won't enter the swamp because they can't stand the smell. Two that randomly spring to mind that might do a better job are Bill Gates and Colin Powell, for different reasons.

This is not a criticism of American politics, by the way; at the moment Britain is worse. On the other hand, the UK can't cause world-wide chaos, either. When we could have done, we didn't.

This is not a criticism of American politics, by the way; at the moment Britain is worse. On the other hand, the UK can't cause world-wide chaos, either. When we could have done, we didn't.

Yes, you Brits were so thoughtful and responsible during the 1930s, with none of this crass warmongering that we get from GWB. Thank God Churchill wasn't PM then. He might have upset your enemies, and then you would have had to apologize.

Bill Gates as President of the United States? Perish the thought. He's a shrewd businessman in some ways. He did help bring computing to the masses. Gates, though, does have some shortcomings of significant note. A few people have alleged he suffers from Asperger's. I don't know whether that is true or not, but he does seem narrow and tone deaf in ways that I would not like to see in a president.

"He did help bring computing to the masses" No, what he did was realize that 'nobody get fired by buying IBM' and that owning the OS gives you unstoppable leverage. This was back in the day when a new microcomputer was introduced every week with it's own OS. CPM and Unix were the only other potential rallying points.

I'd say Tramiel with his C64 brought computing to the masses (over 8 million sold the first year. My serial number had only 3 signicant digits preceeded by a lot of zeros. It cost me $1300 which by the end of the first year had dropped to $200.)

Bill Gates is shrewd, no doubt, but lot's of criminals are. If Jobs hadn't foolishly let him have an early peek at the McIntosh, we might not know who BG was except an annoying guy who used to try to keep everyone from making copies of his paper tape basic interpreter.

Jonathan:

I do, in fact, thank God that Churchill wasn't PM at, and for a short time before, the time when Chamberlain, in the real universe, went to Munich. If he had been, the war would have started right then - and Britain would have lost. Perhaps if Churchill had been PM a lot earlier - say 1931 - then Hitler would have been stepped on before he started. In the real world, the year or so that appeasement bought us was enough - just enough.

Of course, it's also true that if America had entered the war earlier the war would have been over sooner - and several million Jews/gipsies/assorted "undesirables" would have lived, and maybe, just maybe, the Jews wouldn't have needed a homeland; which might have meant, in turn, that assorted acts of terrorism wouldn't have happened either.

It might also have meant that hundreds of millions of people wouldn't have had to suffer totalitarian regimes for fifty years - and for a slightly shorter time rather more people had to live under the shadow of Armageddon.

But never mind; the delay killed the British Empire. That had to be worth it to the USA. Who cares about half a billion people living in misery for fifty years, anyway? They weren't Americans, after all.