Another Look In The Book

Official Presidential Portrait of United State...
Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Game Change has more to say about the underbelly of presidential politics. Everyone from Sarah Palin, whose “handlers” felt she was clueless or worse,when it came to foreign relations and such; to Bill Clinton who may never sip another cup of java for the remainder of his alleged “cheatin’ heart.”

Game Change, the book, reports on more “peccadilloes” by the Tomcat. Supposedly some of Ms. Clinton’s campaign aides determined, in their minds at least, that our former president was in another tangle with the opposite sex during some part or all of the 2008 Presidential campaign. Clinton, who has been referred to by some in the black community (maybe others) as the “first black” President of the United States, may have lost some of his glow as a hero for at least one of his stupid comments to the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy.  This time his words had nothing to do with defining “is.”  His comment according to Game Change and a report by Ben Smith in Politico was as reported:

[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

Hard to fact-check this one unless there is or was a tape recorder wherever Senator Kennedy is now or was then … we could ask Bill … NOT.

Will there be speculation as to whether Senator Kennedy could have actually been offended or has he heard worse without having his ire raised?


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

2 thoughts on “Another Look In The Book

  1. After reading this, I got the impression that the book was another shot at the Democrats, but reading some reviews proved me wrong. From the New York Times review:

    They write that during debate preps, some staff members assigned to Sarah Palin by the McCain campaign discussed the “threatening possibility: that Palin was mentally unstable.” They add that several of Senator John McCain’s lieutenants agreed that if it looked as if their candidate might actually win in November, they would have to discuss how to relegate Ms. Palin “to the largely ceremonial role that premodern vice presidents inhabited”: “it was inconceivable” that “if McCain fell ill or died, the country be left in the hands of a President Palin.”

    and

    Mr. Halperin and Mr. Heilemann write, for instance, that the strategist John Weaver suspected the rumor Cindy McCain had a “long-term boyfriend” in Arizona “was rooted in truth,” and that the McCains “fought in front of others, during small meetings and before large events, to the amazement and discomfort of the staff.” The authors say that Mrs. McCain accused the senator of ruining her life, that she never wanted him to run again for president, and that “when it came time to film campaign videos of the couple, the camera crews had to roll for hours to capture a few minutes of warmth.”

    Most of the reviewers out there seem to think that the book was somewhat worth reading; however, they also acknowledge that quite a bit of the content involves unsubstantiated statements, rumor, and gossip. It remains to be seen just what sort of success the book will see – with well over a year since the election, there may be insufficient public interest to propel sales much beyond the opening bump, especially given the fact that the campaign that reportedly got the most coverage – Clinton’s – didn’t even get the nomination.

    • It wasn’t my intent to review the book. but I mentioned Palin and her “handlers” opinions regarding her political acumen. I did not mention Edwards and what was written of him. What little I read in articles clued me into the likelihood that it would be a piece that covered the stupidity, of most everyone that participated in the campaign 0f 2008.

      The article was written to question whether Clinton has a problem with what many would consider racist, or if not racist, certainly insensitive remarks when it comes to the President and whether he still has what would be called cabron tendencies when it comes to the opposite sex.

      As you said and as I indicated (at least as applied to Clinton’s request of Kennedy) there doesn’t seem to be a verifiable source.

Comments are closed.