Frankly, I’m torn about whether I should keep paying attention to the Clinton-fest. On the one hand, he’s still a very newsworthy and influential figure and he’s obviously still a megalomaniacal liar and all that. On the other hand, I just don’t care about him very much anymore.
So, I’ve decided on a compromise. I won’t go out of my way to pay attention to the coverage but I won’t deliberately avoid it either. A couple observations so far:
First: Clinton says in interviews and his book: “I was involved in two great struggles at the same time, a great public struggle over the future of America with a Republican Congress and a private struggle with my old demons. I won the public one and lost the private one. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that.”
Ah, yes, the glorious victory against the Republicans which cost the Democrats the House, the Senate and arguably the White House in 2000. The victory which caused the first two-term Democrat since FDR to tack right on Welfare and trade and abandon the dream of single-payer health care.
Second: This morning I heard Katie Couric ask Dee Dee Myers if she felt “vindicated” by the revelations in the Clinton book. Um, how does that work? Clinton sticks to his stories and the person who originally peddled the stories is vindicated? When George Bush releases his memoirs will Couric ask Ari Fleisher if he feels “vindicated”?