A King Without a Throne
One has to wonder what goes on in the psyche of someone like Bill Clinton when he’s standing nose-to-nose with a man in Ohio, speaking intently and wagging his finger within millimeters of the man’s face.
Ohio voter Robert Holeman contends Mr. Clinton actually made physical contact during the confrontation. “I think he even hit me in the face with his hand,” he said. “He did give me a little pop.”
The video is inconclusive. If Mr. Clinton did strike Mr. Holeman, it was very likely an accident. These things happen, especially when you’re standing nose-to-nose with a complete stranger shaking your finger in his face during a heated exchange.
And what did Mr. Holeman do to deserve this treatment? He expressed an opinion that differed from the one held by Mr. Clinton.
The Barack Obama supporter says he went to hear the former president speak in support of his wife’s candidacy with the intent to offer his view that Hillary Clinton should give up her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and endorse Mr. Obama. Mr. Clinton didn’t like that. “The president became very angry. He was very irate,” Mr. Holeman said. “It’s like the bully in the yard.”
Understandably, Mr. Clinton feels strongly about this election. But his behavior on the campaign trail suggests a pompous inability (or unwillingness) to accept that not everyone agrees with his assessment of the candidates or the issues. At another rally, Mr. Clinton angrily shouted at a protester who disrupted his speech to denounce abortion. After a lifetime in politics, Mr. Clinton should understand that hecklers are part of the deal. By now he should have learned a more graceful response.
Mr. Clinton is an unyoung man who keeps a grueling schedule. Perhaps he can be excused for falling asleep while seated in a prominent position on stage at a Martin Luther King Day event last month. This was embarrassing but laughable. One might equally overlook his subtle race baiting after the South Carolina primary. He’s an old hand in heavyweight politics and he plays to win. But his treatment of Mr. Holeman and the anti-abortion protester suggests a disconcerting intolerance for dissent.
It calls to mind King Juan Carlos’ outburst at the Ibero-American summit in November. The Spanish monarch responded to a tirade by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez by ejaculating -- in front of the gathered world leaders and the international press corps -- “Why don’t you shut up!” It was a decidedly undiplomatic response to what he considered the irritant of Mr. Chávez’s opinion (his harsh criticism of former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar). And it allowed Mr. Chávez to claim, rather convincingly, a residual imperialistic attitude on the part of the former colonial power.
The Spanish King and the former U.S. president have every right to disagree with the Mr. Chavezes and the Mr. Holemans of the world. Unfortunately they seem unable to acknowledge the equivalent right of Mr. Chávez and Mr. Holeman to voice their differing positions.
For Mr. Clinton, who’s been credited with resuscitating the Democratic Party, the dissent from within the party seems particularly difficult to stomach. And given the fabled love affair between Mr. Clinton and the black community, the fact that black Democrats are increasingly defecting to the Obama camp must be especially stinging. Mr. Clinton seems to think that black Democrats like Mr. Holeman should remain eternally grateful for the crumbs his administration threw their way and should therefore pledge their undying loyalty to the House of Clinton.
Things aren’t going his way.
Mr. Clinton’s response to the Democrats’ deviation from his script has shed some unflattering light on what kind of man he truly is. This new image of Mr. Clinton --going toe-to-toe with the unknown dissenter, finger wagging, eyes bulging, lips flapping, surrounded by a gaggle of camera-wielding onlookers -- has been illuminating. Hubris is a word that’s become almost synonymous with the Bush Administration’s follies, but Republicans don’t have a monopoly here.
See video of the confrontation here
President Clinton's MLK Day nap
King Juan Carlos vs President Chávez
tags: 2008 Primaries, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democrats, Election, Hillary Clinton, Hubris, Hugo Chavez, King Juan Carlos, Politics, Robert Holeman
One has to wonder what goes on in the psyche of someone like Bill Clinton when he’s standing nose-to-nose with a man in Ohio, speaking intently and wagging his finger within millimeters of the man’s face.
Ohio voter Robert Holeman contends Mr. Clinton actually made physical contact during the confrontation. “I think he even hit me in the face with his hand,” he said. “He did give me a little pop.”
The video is inconclusive. If Mr. Clinton did strike Mr. Holeman, it was very likely an accident. These things happen, especially when you’re standing nose-to-nose with a complete stranger shaking your finger in his face during a heated exchange.
And what did Mr. Holeman do to deserve this treatment? He expressed an opinion that differed from the one held by Mr. Clinton.
The Barack Obama supporter says he went to hear the former president speak in support of his wife’s candidacy with the intent to offer his view that Hillary Clinton should give up her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and endorse Mr. Obama. Mr. Clinton didn’t like that. “The president became very angry. He was very irate,” Mr. Holeman said. “It’s like the bully in the yard.”
Understandably, Mr. Clinton feels strongly about this election. But his behavior on the campaign trail suggests a pompous inability (or unwillingness) to accept that not everyone agrees with his assessment of the candidates or the issues. At another rally, Mr. Clinton angrily shouted at a protester who disrupted his speech to denounce abortion. After a lifetime in politics, Mr. Clinton should understand that hecklers are part of the deal. By now he should have learned a more graceful response.
Mr. Clinton is an unyoung man who keeps a grueling schedule. Perhaps he can be excused for falling asleep while seated in a prominent position on stage at a Martin Luther King Day event last month. This was embarrassing but laughable. One might equally overlook his subtle race baiting after the South Carolina primary. He’s an old hand in heavyweight politics and he plays to win. But his treatment of Mr. Holeman and the anti-abortion protester suggests a disconcerting intolerance for dissent.
It calls to mind King Juan Carlos’ outburst at the Ibero-American summit in November. The Spanish monarch responded to a tirade by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez by ejaculating -- in front of the gathered world leaders and the international press corps -- “Why don’t you shut up!” It was a decidedly undiplomatic response to what he considered the irritant of Mr. Chávez’s opinion (his harsh criticism of former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar). And it allowed Mr. Chávez to claim, rather convincingly, a residual imperialistic attitude on the part of the former colonial power.
The Spanish King and the former U.S. president have every right to disagree with the Mr. Chavezes and the Mr. Holemans of the world. Unfortunately they seem unable to acknowledge the equivalent right of Mr. Chávez and Mr. Holeman to voice their differing positions.
For Mr. Clinton, who’s been credited with resuscitating the Democratic Party, the dissent from within the party seems particularly difficult to stomach. And given the fabled love affair between Mr. Clinton and the black community, the fact that black Democrats are increasingly defecting to the Obama camp must be especially stinging. Mr. Clinton seems to think that black Democrats like Mr. Holeman should remain eternally grateful for the crumbs his administration threw their way and should therefore pledge their undying loyalty to the House of Clinton.
Things aren’t going his way.
Mr. Clinton’s response to the Democrats’ deviation from his script has shed some unflattering light on what kind of man he truly is. This new image of Mr. Clinton --going toe-to-toe with the unknown dissenter, finger wagging, eyes bulging, lips flapping, surrounded by a gaggle of camera-wielding onlookers -- has been illuminating. Hubris is a word that’s become almost synonymous with the Bush Administration’s follies, but Republicans don’t have a monopoly here.
tags: 2008 Primaries, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democrats, Election, Hillary Clinton, Hubris, Hugo Chavez, King Juan Carlos, Politics, Robert Holeman
posted by citizenjane at 9:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home