home

Late Night: Bill Clinton on Letterman

Just starting here. I'll update. This is an open thread.

Update: Chris Rock follows Clinton and is laugh out loud funny on Palin. He talked about her killing a moose (here's a photo)and holding a dead bloodied moose and quips, "Michael Vick is like, 'Why am I in jail?'" (Video here, start at 1:50 in, although the whole thing is funny.)

Update: They talked about the Clinton Global Initiative and the economy. The economy discussion was too complicated for me. (Letterman said the same thing when Clinton was done.) It got a little easier to understand when Clinton changed the subject to how the Bush Administration could have prevented this by having policies that focused on investing in jobs and clean energy rather than giving tax cuts to the rich who just kept investing in real estate, and leveraging the investments, but only a little.

More...

BTD would be pleased Clinton says the way to go is the HOLC. Clinton also says we should adopt Hillary's plan of a moratorium on home foreclosures. He ended saying he thought Obama would win because people will want to take the country in a different direction.

This is an open thread.

< Colorado's Personhood Amendment | Palin Post-Peak: Favorability Slides >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What is happening... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:19:19 AM EST
    in North Carolina.

    Liddy Dole, who at one time had a +20 lead with Rasmussen, now is at -6 to Kay Hagan in today's Rasmussen poll.

    The last two polls out of NC have Hagan at +5 and +6. Is this North Carolina deciding to go Dem this year or is it more a case of Dole living year round in DC and the residents of North Carolina want one of their own? Dole won 54-45 in 2002. This is an amazing flip of the polls with no scandals involved.

    could be her age (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM EST
    the race was close a few weeks ago too:

    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already made a veiled attack on Dole's age. In an ad that ran over the summer, the commercial asked, "Is Dole 92 or 93? _ a reference to Dole's ranking in one poll of the most effective senators that many saw as a sly reeference to Dole's age. (Dole is 72, the same age as John McCain).

    She's also attacked for being tied to special interests and spending too much time in Washington, as you note.

    Parent

    Being in NC (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:54:05 AM EST
    I can say that Kay Hagan has been pretty darn aggressive in her ad campaigning--and she comes out with some good ads too, like the one Jeralyn mentioned. Dole has started to come out with a couple, but they aren't as sharp, and don't air quite as often. Hagan's got a good deal here with Obama as well because Obama's massive GOTV effort in NC is probably helping to boost her stats up.

    So far though, I think it's mainly a result of ineffective campaigning and appearances by Liddy Dole. I don't think she's fully into the race yet or something.

    Parent

    On Clinton's comments (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by MaBJ on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:55:11 AM EST
    It got a little easier to understand when Clinton changed the subject to how the Bush Administration could have prevented this by having policies that focused on investing in jobs and clean energy rather than giving tax cuts to the rich who just kept investing in real estate, and leveraging the investments, but only a little.

    BTD would be pleased Clinton says the way to go is the HOLC. Clinton also says we should adopt Hillary's plan of a moratorium on home foreclosures.

    In a way it's really too bad that the Fed, Treasury, Bush and others didn't act on Hillary's recommendations earlier this year when she first proposed them. It could have prevented the fast-lane meltdown we now face.

    As for HOLC, I think it's a sound, practical idea (still) that is worth well more than the worthless paper Paulson is proposing the gov't. buy back, because it will shield homeowners from further losses and offers a way out for Main Street Americans who are now between a rock and a hard place: squeezed credit, sinking home prices/equity, faced with the prospect of seeing their neighborhoods - plagued by foreclosures - turning into weed-strewn suburban wastelands.

    The other point is about investing in real "things" as opposed to paper assets that are used as bargaining chips leveraged to buy even greater shares of futures. Clinton has this just perfect. One of the things I read today (Alternet) has to do with an underlying problem of this mess - that we have spent a generation investing in financials and massive amounts of consumer goods that we have a profusion of, which has helped create a vast top-heavy financial market that has increasingly invested in itself (and a worthless surfeit of consumer goods), or to speculate (bet on) the success/failure of the future of these non-things.

    Clinton also pointed out last week that our economy is comprised of approximately 40% real estate (and its associated financial markets, such as insurance, credit) and 60% consumerism wherein we produce actually nothing of any value or use to anybody else, here or around the world!

    So, good for WJC to say these things. He's probably one of only a handful of people who really understand the depth of this mess and how to fix it.

    I found that "joke" by Rock offensive (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:23:51 AM EST
    Comparing sustenance hunting to dog fighting and torture and throwing in race was disgusting. Just on the humane front they are totally different. There's a reason why one is ALWAYS* illegal and the other is controlled by law. White chicks will be arrested for dog fighting, dog torture and dog killing. The law does not leave them out.

    Rock also seemed to forget that Hillary is still a Senator and the Wall Street problem is just a tad bit of a concern here in the state she represents.

    Glad you enjoyed it though.

    * I think dog fighting may still be legal in a state or 2, but torture and killing isn't. And if anyone's wondering, the dogs that went to Bad Rap are doing great, getting placed in homes and some are working on becoming therapy dogs. The ones that went to Best Friends are also doing well. Haven't followed up on the ASPCA dogs, but they have a great program there (have spent hands on time working with dogs there), so I imagine those dogs are doing well also. Major props to the Judge in this case for not ordering all the dogs killed which was suggested by PETA.

    You're right, nycstray. (none / 0) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:44:07 AM EST
    And I think that if Obama recognizes that, he has the chance to personally go Sister Souljah on Chris Rock's sorry butt about this joke.  

    That would be a good PR move, as well as the right thing to do.  No, this form of hunting is not the same thing as dogfighting.  


    Parent

    Chris Rock (none / 0) (#11)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:05:58 AM EST
    LINK

    Chris Rock is not used to playing second fiddle.

    Parent

    Would that be the Chris Rock (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:02:41 AM EST
    who said that a woman could be president but just not Senator Clinton, who only got her job because of her husband?  

    He said the same thing Chris Mathews said.  Is he exonerated here now, too?  Ugh.

    Parent

    I thought it was funny.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    then again, I don't think Michael Vick should be in jail.

    Is dog fighting wrong?  You bet, I have a problem with it.  But putting human beings in cages unless it is absolutely necessary is wrong too.  He lost his job and a good chunk of his fortune, that is enough punishment.

    Do we know for sure that all that moose meat was being eaten?  If not, its just as much of a sin as what Mike Vick did.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    I understand the distinction, but I think part of the point is that it looks much the same from the moose's perspective.

    Parent
    gads, (none / 0) (#22)
    by ZtoA on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    of all the ways to put meat on one's table, corporate meat growing is the most grotesquely inhumane. Maybe Chris Rock buys shiny plastic wrapped meat where the animal suffered horribly every day of their life. This whole anti-hunting sentiment leaves oneself open to  a discussion of the much worse treatment of animals by folks who do eat meat but do not hunt.

    Parent
    Execution set for tomorrow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:23:13 AM EST
    Seven witnesses have recanted their testimony in a Georgia death penalty case, but the execution of convicted murderer Troy Anthony Davis is moving forward.

    Davis was convicted of killing a Savannah police officer in the parking lot of a fast food joint in 1989. The case, which has drawn national and international attention, was based solely on eyewitness evidence. Even though most of those witnesses have changed their stories, no court has heard the new testimony.

    Although I am not a lawyer this case has intrigued me. It was on our local North Fla. News that the date was set for tomorrow and the governor of Georgia has said no stay would be issued.

    LINK

    Biden distances himself (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:27:38 AM EST
    from an Obama ad.  See AP.  

    I wasn't watching, but apparently Chris Rock (none / 0) (#5)
    by Firewalker on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:45:34 AM EST
    questioned Bill Clinton's support of Obama. I don't mean face-to-face but in the next segment. Ugh.

    I think it would be neat. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:56:13 AM EST
    To start a polling firm. To see what people have to say. To experiment with methodologies and R-squared's and trendlines and such. I wonder how such a thing would get off the ground... just start calling people? Release internals of polls to get offa the bottom and gain legitimacy... gotta come up with something unique for the company to gain some headway into the "polling market" (just made that up)... sounds like a project to me. Any ideas as to some good tips?

    Agree with MaBJ's comment above (none / 0) (#12)
    by bluejane on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:16:12 AM EST
    Watching BC framing up the economic mess, making  sense of it (mostly -- leveraging  is still a mystery to me) but certainly the larger picture, and I kept thinking why can't this man be our prez and of course he can't but he made me smile how spot on he is and for the most part was 92 to 00 "putting people first." I met him at a Santa Barbara fundraiser several years ago and handed him my re-design of an old Time cover of "The Incredible Shrinking President," changed to "The Incredible Thinking President." He was delighted, and I'm told it's framed in his Harlem office.

    Major disappointment, however: I know Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach bill that got rid of the key Glass-Steagall regulation that helped Wall Street get into this mess (would love to hear his explanation on why, given his better understanding of the economy than others; maybe he had some good reason in his mind or maybe he was naïve enough to think that it would not be put to the use it was to destabilize the economy as much as it did, who knows?). Still, I'm glad Letterman let him have as much time in the chair as he did so I could get a better handle on what's going on in this crazy economic mess. Thanks for the heads up, Jeralyn.

    He talked about it on the View (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:54:21 AM EST
    Monday AM. The video segments are floating around now. Good Ol' YouTube :)

    I "think" he made me understand the leveraging a bit better. To me it sounded like gambling. You (WS/BANKS/ETC) have enough to cover a mortgage, then they think well a few more. Kinda like the "house" at a blackjack table giving a line of credit to everyone that sits down.

    Then basically they started selling more at lower costs. Which could be like inviting more to join in the game because payoff has to be there if they increase the opportunity, bring them in at ab affordable fee. Which I took to mean, bundling the mortgages so you have more "investment" to offer on WS, but it's at a higher risk (but who cares?!) because if part/all go belly up, you can't cover them all.  It sounds like they were bundling and then trading/selling risk VS actual stocks/securities that had some meat behind them like growing alternative energy companies.

    If you look back on the dot com bust, there was a lot of paper and air where companies should have been. Yes there were companies, but there seemed to be a lot built on speculation/risk with a $taff in place. The ones around now seem to be started small, grew big, hit big.

    Many dotcoms didn't produce, there was no there, there (I interviewed at some of those. OY! A$$backwards!) Housing (and commercial) also turned into a no there, there. If they would have done something sooner to save what was going under in housing, the WS risks (the "house") would not have lost as much value. That's why just a bailout won't work. Bad assets will still be bad (the "house" can give a line of credit, but they need to cut off the player and revamp a payment sched to keep the till solvent). Those "bundles" need to contain some meat, not so many foreclosures, subprimes, etc. (aka "house" comps, fat cats on the down, and the little guy that just needs a good roll of the die to get ahead). The "house" was playing fast and loose.

    Parent

    Google Anglachel's journal (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    and scroll down a bit until you find her investigative report on that bill.  She tells how Clinton fought it for months and finally accepted it when they put in some changes including the Community Reclamation Act (to stop redlining) and improve loans to low income people.  Now the Repubs are saying that making loans to those "risky" people is what caused this mess.  It didn't.  the loans themselves were outrageous, marketed to "target" populations and that was the criminal part. There were other reasons as well, but the lack of oversight by the GOP was the biggeee. Read up.

    Parent
    That's not a moose. (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    Yeah . . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by Randinho on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    That's a caribou.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton on Letterman (none / 0) (#17)
    by PaulaT on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    I was astounded at the tepid endorsement that Bill Clinton gave to Barack Obama on the Letterman show.  Unbelievable, given how close we are to the election.  Essentially, he was saying, "vote for change"...oh, and by the way, the guy at the top of the ticket happens to be Barack.  Sheesh!!  No wonder the Obama campaign doesn't know how to use him.  Clinton went down a few knotches last night in my estimation.  Shame on Clinton for not using this opportunity to highlight Obama's abilities.  Instead, he seemed to be more or less equating Obama to McCain.  I couldn't believe it...and neither could Chris Rock!

    In an earlier comment, (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    I noted that I, too, felt, at first,  that President Clinton could have been more specific in his  support of Senator Obama(he did, of course, state his support and that he, Hillary and Biden would be in Pennsylvania as part of the campaign).  But, on instant reflection, I reminded myself that  he is masterful in understanding the political scene-and his goal was not to win over  you or me, but to capture the unsure or those who (for whatever reason) might feel disloyal to McCain for not voting for him, especially as a prisoner of war and all.  So, it seems to me, that President Clinton chose to build a case for change and that change is not gong to come from the Republican side, even if someone respected McCain on a personal level.  It is quite OK to vote against McCain, was the message, I think.

    Parent
    OTOH (none / 0) (#23)
    by MaBJ on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:34:32 AM EST
    we aren't giving this litmus test to Jimmy Carter.

    I actually like that WJC is being more analytical about the election and that he isn't engaging in name-calling, negativity, small-mindedness about John McCain. It makes me stop and realize that none of the candidates are bad people - just human beings that make different choices and decisions than I do - and to mentally shift my attitude to one of respectful disagreement with McCain/Palin over their ways of governing. We need more of this, imo, to remind us that "Hey! We can treat other candidates like adults, instead of demeaning them, and still profoundly disagree with their worldview!

    Parent