Allen Gregg: Christopher Hitchens Interview (2001)

Source:TVO- Canadian talk show host Allen Gregg interviewing British political columnist & author Christopher Hitchens, in 2001. 

"Christopher Hitchens 2001 Conversation with Allan Gregg on Bill Clinton" 

From the Hitchens Archive

Before I get into what I really think about Christopher Hitchens and his take on Bill Clinton, I'm going to give him credit for one thing. 

The Liberals (meaning the real Liberals) really love Bill Clinton. The Republican Party gets stereotyped as the party of wealth and rich people and some of that is true. But a lot of the money and well-educated in this country is in the liberal wing (center-right-wing of the Democratic Party) of the Democratic Party, who have a tendency to talk like whacked-out, hippie-leftists. But who love liberal democracy and American capitalism (at least privately) because they've benefited so much from the American system of individual freedom, choice, rights, rule of law, separation of powers, and federalism. 

American Liberals even though at times talk like leftists who at times act like the America is the real empire in the world and we need to replace the American federal, liberal democratic, form of government, which some type of socialist state, actually, at least privately love America and what we're supposed to stand for.

American Liberals (again, meaning the real Liberals) in and outside of Hollywood, New York, the establishment of the Democratic Party, love Bill Clinton, because he's one of them culturally and ideologically.  

Now I'm not a mindreader (hopefully that's not a newsflash for anyone) but Chris Hitchens represents the Democratic Party of the 1960s, the New-Left of the 1960s, the George McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party of the 1970s and 80s. The Democratic Party that was stereotyped as people who value the welfare state, over education, opportunity, and individual freedom. A Democratic Party that was stereotyped as soft of communism, because the Far-Left of the party didn't have problems with Communists and communism. A Democratic Party that was viewed as soft of crime, who favored the rights of criminals and prison inmates, over the rights of their victims. 

When Mike Dukakis when he ran for President and won the Democratic nomination in 1988, he started to try to change the image of the Democratic Party and take back the party from the Chris Hitchens's and other far-leftists in the party, but lost badly against George H.W. Bush. 

Bill Clinton in 1992 and as President of the United States, was successful in taking back the Democratic Party from the Far-Left and turning the party back into a center-left and in some cases a center-right party, that was seen as responsible on fiscal policy and with American tax dollars. A party and government that would defend the country domestically and against foreign powers,. A party and government that wanted people on welfare to get an education, a good job, and move to the middle class. 

This is what Chris Hitchens really hates about Bill Clinton. Clinton took the Democratic Party away from him and people who think like him. That's what I believe anyway. 

Mear Bhrach: Bill Clinton His Life

Source:Mear Bhrach- Bill Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

Just to start off, you should know that I’m a big fan of Bill Clinton and a lot of my politics and own liberalism comes from him. And following his own career and he would’ve been someone I would’ve been more than happy to vote for twice for president if I was eligible. At risk of sounding overdramatic Bill Clinton I believe at least saved the Democratic Party. The country was moving right and moving away from Progressive Democratic centralized government designed to take care of people. More towards individual freedom especially as it related to the economy and was tired of seeing their taxes going up especially as the debt and deficits were going up as well.

Congressional Republicans at some point probably in the 1990s was going to win back Congress both the House and Senate. Just because of where the country was and Republicans starting to dominate the South and continued to do well in the Midwest. Now that didn’t have to be 1994 and President Clinton’s first two years probably sped up the Republican takeover of Congress. But that was going to happen in the near future if not 1994. And had it not have been for Bill Clinton the Democratic Party wouldn’t have been in ready with any message to respond to Conservative Republicans who came to power in the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions.

Without Bill Clinton the Democratic Party would’ve still been dominated not by FDR Progressives who are actually pretty practical mainstream leftists, but McGovernites from the New Left who came of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s and got organized inside of the Democratic Party. People who were anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-establishment in general from the Right and Left. People who wanted to essentially tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and private enterprise system. And transform America into Scandinavia economically, politically and everything else. Going up against Conservative Republicans who thought the current government was already too big with the political backers and resources to support them.

What Bill Clinton did what was called the Third Way was give Democrats and Americans an alternative to the Reagan Revolution in the Republican Party that essentially want to tear down everything that was built up from the New Deal and Great Society. And the McGovernites the New Left in the Democratic Party that wanted to expanded everything that was built up in the New Deal and Great Society and turn America into a Scandinavian social democracy. And to say there was a third way that center-left New Democrats could take to offer Americans to bring the Democratic Party back to power. That wasn’t about big government or small government, but using government in a responsible limited way to empower people in need to be able to also live in freedom.

Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party that has basically been running and governing under his vision of government, or something very close to it since 1993 when he became President of the United States. The days of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and George McGovern are over. And now the Democratic Party at least at the leadership level has been about saving the programs that people need and work well. Empowering people at the bottom and near bottom to be able to move up in life and not have to live on government dependence indefinitely. A party that will defend the country both through law enforcement and with the military. That won’t try to overtax the middle class and respect their incomes and will be responsible with Americans tax dollars. And that to me at least is the legacy of President Bill Clinton.
Source:Mear Bhrach

Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic Nomination Speech

Source: Clinton Foundation- Governor Bill Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) accepting the 1992 Democratic Party nomination for President, at the Madison Square Garden, in New York City.

Source:FRS FreeState

In 1992 when the Democratic Party nominated Bill Clinton for President, the Democratic Party completed the transition it started in the mid 1980s after losing the 1984 presidential election in another landslide similar to 1984 and the third landslide loss they had at the presidential level since 1972 and after the 1984 landslide loss. A coalition of Democrats who by the time Bill Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President in 1992 were called New Democrats who aren’t Moderate Democrats, but Liberal Democrats, but not in the stereotypical ways that Liberals tend to get stereotyped as today.  

But Liberal Democrats who weren’t pro-government, but not anti-government either, but Democrats who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Not use government to try to managed Americans lives, but empower people so they can do that for themselves. Which is very different from the way the Democratic Party was prior to 1985 and how they were seen.

I believe the biggest legacy that Bill Clinton had as President of the United States and his political career in general was how he changed the Democratic Party and moved the Democratic Party. Changing it from a party that was at least as seen and in some cases with the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. As a anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-success, anti-military, ant-religious, anti-American even party. To a party that became in favor of all of those things, but wanted them to be used in a responsible way. 

Didn’t want people to be able to force their values on the rest of the country that didn’t agree with them especially through law. Wanted all Americans to have a good opportunity to be successful in America instead of a select few being able to control most of the wealth in America. Who weren’t anti-military and didn’t believe America should or could police the world, but protect America. That was pro-law-enforcement but also respected civil liberties and personal freedom as well.

The New Democratic wave in the Democratic Party really started in 1976 with the Democratic Party nominating Jimmy Carter for President. And how President Carter moved the country as President on economic and foreign policy. By taking the position that the country didn’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t do everything for everybody. That there was a limit to what government could do for the people who people themselves needed more power and freedom to be able to take care of themselves and that America also needed to be strong at home as well as abroad. 

One problem with Jimmy Carter is that he didn’t get reelected and as a result the Democratic Party in the early 1980s went back to the Social Democratic Party that was at least seen as against those things I’ve already mentioned. And seem to have a new tax increase or government program for all of the country's problems. And what Bill Clinton did in 1992 was move the party back to what Jimmy Carter started in 1976 and was able to move the party forward because he got reelected in 1996.

I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit as it relates to the Democratic Party especially because he essentially saved the Democratic Party and kept it as a national party that remained competitive at the presidential level. And thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama the Democratic Party wins back Congress in 2006 and have retained control of the Senate since 2007 even though they lost the House in 2010 and the Democratic Party has been able to do these things because they are no longer seen as a Far-left Social Democratic Party. 

But instead a Liberal Democratic Party that in a lot of these areas are now beating the Republican Party. And all of this started with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and went full circle with Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And that trend has continued ever since with McGovernites the Social Democrats in the Democratic Party now finally fighting back to try to take back the power they had in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 70s.
Source:Clinton Foundation

Mike Gardner: Democratic Response to President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union

Source: Mike Gardner & NBC News-

Source:The New Democrat 

This is where we start to see the Democratic Leadership Council the New Democrats in the Democratic Party starting to take over the Democratic Party after the Democrats had just lost 4-5 presidential elections starting in 1968. The McGovernites the New Left took over the Democratic Party in the late 1960s from the liberal and progressive establishment in the party. And as a result Democrats were seen as tax and spend, government can do everything for everybody, people shouldn't have to work and support themselves, soft of welfare, soft on defense, soft on crime. All the stereotypes that killed the Democratic Party at the presidential level in those four presidential election losses.

What the New Democrats were saying is "that we won't win the White House back and perhaps even come close until the change the image of the party and how we are presented. So we don't look like we want to spend most of the money that people make for them. That we will do what it takes to defend the country from domestic and foreign predators within the Constitution. That we'll use Welfare and other public assistance to help move people out of poverty instead of expecting nothing from them as so many other Americans struggle to just pay their bills through working and not collecting public assistance".

And by 1992 we saw the results with Bill Clinton being elected President of the United States with large majorities in Congress and by 1996 we saw most of the negative stereotypes disappear to the point that Americans trusted Democrats more than Republicans when it came to taxes, the economy, fiscal responsibility, crime, foreign policy and national defense. Because the New Democrats took control of the Democratic Party from the Mcgovernitegs.
Source:Mike Gardner

Charlie Rose Show: Christopher Hitchens On Bill Clinton (1999)

Source:The Charlie Rose Show- Christopher Hitchens, on the Charlie Rose Show in 1999, talking about President Bill Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat 

"A conversation with journalist Christopher Hitchens about his book "No One Left to Lie To", which investigates the Clinton presidency and his criticisms of Clinton's political compromises and personal scandals." 

Originally from The Charlie Rose Show

This just in- Christopher Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. Now we return you to your Insomniac Nightly Movie: The Attack of the Killer Popcorn. Ha, ha.

This is no secret and as Chris Hitchens said early on in this interview that he strongly dislikes Bill Clinton. He is also an admitted Democratic Socialist back before Senator Bernie Sanders made that term somewhat cool in America. And represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party whether he is officially a member of that party or not. And is way to the left of American Liberals and Americans in general. As Hitchens said himself in this interview.

Bill Clinton represents the Center-Left of the Democratic Party and for a long time led that wing of the party that brought the party back to power at the national level in the early 1990s. The New Democrat liberal wing of the party, the wing of the party that I come from as well. The wing of the party that made the party mainstream again on fiscal and economic policy as well. Along with crime, social insurance, national security, trade and you can go down the line. Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party if not hate New Democrats come damn close to that for taking the leadership of the party away from them.

Not saying these are the only reasons that Chris Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. But I'm also not saying these are not the main reasons either. What I'm saying is that you have to take that in account when you hear charges that Hitch and his allies make about Clinton and other New Democrats. That they call corporatists and sell outs and un-compassionate towards the poor and everything else.

C-SPAN: Washington Journal- Steve Scully Interviewing Christopher Hitchens

Source:The Film Archives-President William J. Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat 

I'm not a mind-reader obviously, but Chris Hitchens was an admitted Socialist and was his whole life. Even though late in his career he became more of a Neoconservative on foreign policy and national security. He supported the War in Iraq and admitted that 9/11 changed his take on foreign policy and national security. If Hitchens was a Democrat he was from the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party, the New Left that came into existence in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The McGovernites that are Occupy Wall Street today are Social Democrats who probably had as much influence over the Democratic Party as the Christian Right has over the Republican Party today. And the McGovernites essentially ran the Democratic Party from 1968 or so until Democrats lost their fifth out of six presidential elections in 1988. Bill Clinton is a New Democrat and comes from the New Democratic wing of the Democratic Party that now runs the party today.

New Democrats believe in using government to empower people. Not support them indefinitely without expecting anything from those tax dollars. New Democrats believe in foreign trade, a strong but limited liberal internationalist foreign policy. Infrastructure, education and job training over government dependence. Smart on crime, not soft on crime which means punishing hardcore criminals and not blaming society for their crimes.

Social Democrats believe in the central state and that the job of government is to take care of people. Not empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Welfare to Work was kind of the last straw for Social Democrats in the Democratic Party after trade, the 1994 Crime Bill and deficit reduction. And not expanding the Federal state as it related to the economy and creating a welfare state for the country. And instead moving away from those traditional Democratic policies.

Again I'm not a mind-reader, but I believe a lot of the criticism that Chris Hitchens has for President Clinton has to do with President Clinton's politics. Instead of the man's personal behavior as President and that Hitchens is still angry over how Clinton transformed the Democratic Party and made it a center-left party again. And no longer a social democratic party that it was pre-Clinton that is common on the Left in Europe.
Source:The Film Archives:

CSPAN: 1992 Presidential Debate: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ross Perot

Source:CSPAN- President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 41st President of the United States.

"The presidential candidates for the 1992 election debated each other in the the second of three scheduled presidential debates. The participants were President George Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. They answered questions from the audience that regarded their campaigns and their policy preferences, which mostly focused on economic issues. The audience consisted of 209 undecided voters from the Richmond, VA area."

Source:MOX News

The 1992 townhall presidential debate was a history making presidential debate for a few reasons: 

The first one that was in a townhall format, where the contenders were on stage, but not stuck behind a podium. They could walk around and actually get close to the audience. And that was another thing the moderator was more of a referee than an interviewer, there to make sure that the contenders didn't go over time and try to keep them from dodging questions and even asking followups. As well as the audience being the interviewers. The debate was sort of like an afternoon talk show like Geraldo, Oprah, or, Donahue, or something.

And you had three contenders: President Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, and businessman Ross Perot. A Republican, Democrat and Independent. Ross Perot was not buried at 1% or something, he was polling at around 20%, with none of the three contenders polling at 50% and I believe only one contender polling at over 40%.

America was just starting to recover from the recession of the early 1990s, with high unemployment, interest and inflation rates. Not crazy about Republicans who had the White House for twelve years, but not in love with Democrats and sure they should have Congress and the White House. Which was Ross Perot's opportunity to get into the presidential election. 

Bill Clinton already had the lead in this race going in, but this is the debate I believe, where he sold the deal. Where he was able to convince enough voters, that he was ready and up for the job and was able to layout a vision of what change would mean under him. 

It was also the debate where Ross Perot came off as likable and competent and not crazy. But I don't think enough people knew enough about him to give him the presidency. This was also President Bush's last opportunity to tell people why he should give another opportunity to be reelected.

But President Bush blew it, because he wasn't able to connect with people and once again looked out- of-touch and I believe failed to layout, how his second term would be different from his first term. How would things get better in a second Bush Administration. He made his campaign almost completely about foreign policy, his success's in foreign policy, when the country was just went through a recession and just starting to recover from it.

The Criterion Collection: Chris Hegedus & D. A. Pennebaker- The War Room (1993) Documentary

Source:IMDB- the cover of The War Room film.

Source:The Daily Press 

“The 1992 presidential election was a triumph not only for Bill Clinton but also for the new breed of strategists who guided him to the White House—and changed the face of politics in the process. For this thrilling, behind-closed-doors account of that campaign, renowned cinema verité filmmakers Chris Hegedus and D. A. Pennebaker captured the brainstorming and bull sessions of Clinton’s crack team of consultants—especially James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, who became media stars in their own right as they injected a savvy, youthful spirit and spontaneity into the process of campaigning. Fleet-footed and entertaining, The War Room is a vivid document of a political moment whose truths (“It’s the economy, stupid!”) still ring in our ears.” 

From The Criterion Collection 

“The 1992 presidential election was a triumph not only for Bill Clinton but also for the new breed of strategists who guided him to the White House—and changed the face of politics in the process. For this thrilling, behind-closed-doors account of that campaign, renowned cinema verité filmmakers Chris Hegedus and D. A. Pennebaker captured the brainstorming and bull sessions of Clinton’s crack team of consultants—especially James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, who became media stars in their own right as they injected a savvy, youthful spirit and spontaneity into the process of campaigning. Fleet-footed and entertaining, The War Room is a vivid document of a political moment whose truths (“It’s the economy, stupid!”) still ring in our ears.”

Source:Pennbaker Hegedus- James Carville was Bill Clinton't 1992 presidential campaign manager.

From  Pennebaker Hegedus 

In 1991-92 I guess was the time that I started getting into politics to the point that I was actually following the news about it. I was 16 and a sophomore in high school and I saw a speech I believe on C-SPAN. I became a political junky pretty early in life and I was actually watching C-SPAN and saw a speech from then Governor Bill Clinton from Arkansas and he was talking about how we could make college more affordable in America, an issue we are still talking about twenty-years later.

And Governor Clinton was talking about an idea called AMERI-CORE, where people would get tax credits, or be able to go to college at no financial cost to them, if they serve their country. They work in community service, join the military, become a teacher, work in law enforcement, become a doctor etc. In other words, be able to go to college if they give back and serve their country. And this program that was enacted shortly after he became President in 1993 and he was able to inspire thousands if not millions of Americans to volunteer for their country and in return would be able to go to college. And when I heard this speech, it gave me the sense that Bill Clinton was a winner, a Democrat who could actually get elected President of the United States. 

Listening to Bill Clinton’s speech and following his presidential campaign, gave me the idea that Bill Clinton was a different Democrat. Someone whose called a New Democrat, someone who doesn’t just believe in growing the Federal Government and raising new taxes to pay for it and by doing this, that would automatically solve whatever problem the program was intended to solve. But that you had to make the Federal Government work and be able to reform or eliminate things in the Federal Government that wasn’t working. 

That Clinton’s presidential campaign was about the people not government. How do you make government work for the people, so it empowers the people who need to be empowered. Not growing government to take care of people but using it in a way so the people who need it can take care of themselves instead, which are two different concepts. Americans were looking for a change in 1992, that’s clear with a bad economy, lack of economic and gob growth. 

Americans saw President Bush as out of touch and not up to the job of turning the country around and were looking for a change. But weren’t sure they were ready to turn it over to the Democrats. People who have been stereotyped as big government tax and spenders and weren’t interested in seeing new tax hikes, but wanted to go back to work and take care of themselves. And what they got from Bill Clinton was a new Democratic voice, someone who could talk about progressivism and communicate it in a way that made it about people and not government. 

Bill Clinton had this saying that people who collected public assistance will no longer be able to get it for free in a Clinton Administration. That people on public assistance were going to be expected to use that time to prepare themselves to go to work and serve their communities. 

Bill Clinton’s political hero is Jack Kennedy, same as mind along with Bill Clinton and a few other people. And of course one of President Kennedy’s famous lines is, ask not what government can do for you, but what you can do for your country. And I believe Bill Clinton took that to heart and made that a big part of his presidential campaign and a bigger part of his presidency and it worked very well.

CSPAN: 'Bill Clinton 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech'

Source:CSPAN- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 1993-2001.

"Pres. Bill Clinton Address at Democratic National Convention" 

From CSPAN

"Bill Clinton: HOME RUN Democratic Convention Speech: Bill Clinton speaks before the 2008 Democratic National Convention." 

Source:CSPAN- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 1993-2001

Source: CNN- President William J. Clinton- 1993-2001-

From Widget Brain

This photo is from CNN's coverage of President Bill Clinton's 2008 Democratic National Convention speech in Denver, Colorado. But the video that the photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:CSPAN- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 1993-2001

Happy Holidays and New Year to everyone what a better way to kickoff 2012 than a post about the 2012 presidential election.

I think before we talk about President Clinton's 2008 DNC speech, I think we first have to talk about what led up to this speech and why he was speaking in favor of then Senator Barack Obama, instead of his wife Senator Hillary Clinton, who not only ran for President in 2007-08, but was the clear favorite and frontrunner to not just win the 2008 Democratic nomination, but to go onto win The White House. Because at this point there was nothing in life that President Clinton wanted then for his wife to be the first female President of the United States. 

I'm sure that President Clinton believed everything that he said in favor of Barack Obama during this speech. But this speech showed that he was a team player and could suck it up and learn to live with his wife's huge upset loss and be a team Democrat and understand that for the Democratic Party to win back The White House, he and his wife were going to have to get on board together and unite the party behind Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden. When the Clinton's could've easily just became sore losers and almost hoped that the Obama/Biden campaign lost and that wait for 2012 to run for President again.

CNN: Dr. Sanjay Gupta- Interviewing President Bill Clinton in 2009: 'Bill Clinton Compares Single-Payer, Universal Health Care Vs. Free Market, Private Health Coverage'

Source:CNN- President William J. Clinton (1993-2001) being interviewed by CNN about healthcare reform, in 2009.

"(3/11/09) Bill Clinton debates the merits of a pure, universal single-payer health care model vs. a free market, privately insured system.  Video: CNN's "Larry King Live" w/ guest host: Dr. Sanjay Gupta." 

From CNN

My ideal health insurance system as well as health care system, is a system that puts the consumers, not government in charged of where they get their health insurance and health care and how they pay for it. That doesn't put monopolies private and public in charged of where and how people get their health insurance. Where you have multiple health insurance and health  are providers, including non-profits competing with each other. To give consumers maximum access in where they get these services. Bringing prices down through competition. 

If people don't like the health insurance, or health care from one provider, they have the option to go somewhere else. Forcing providers to compete with each and force them to provide the best service possible to have the most customers possible. A health care system thats well-regulated, not over or under regulated, something like a Patients Bill of Rights in order to prevent health insurance and health care providers from abusing their patients. I'm against dumping people when they get sick for example, or having lifetime caps. 

I've basically just laid out the health care systems of France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Japan. Not the health care systems of Canada, Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. Which have single payer systems that Socialists tend to favor in America and in other countries. 

The Obama Administration during the health care reform debate of 2009-10, attempted to move our health care system, to the French-German public-private model. And even wanted to put through a public option non-profit health insurance provider that would be self-financed, self sufficient and independent of the Federal Government. This wasn't going to be some new entitlement program that would cover the entire country like a single payer system. And they got damn close to passing it before they settled for the Affordable Care Act.

My opposition with a single payer system is that takes power away from the people who would be consuming the health care system and giving it to government. As a Liberal I have a big problem with that, or any other attempt to take power away from people and give it to government. 

Yes, Canada and Britain's health care system costs half of what ours as far as GDP. But in my opinion Canadian and Brits pay a heavy price for it. They pay less money in exchange for less freedom when it comes to their health insurance. 

I rather pay a little more for health insurance, as long as I have the freedom in where I pay it. By the way, France which doesn't have a government-run system, but a public-private system, spends less of it's GDP on their health care system than Canada and Britain. 

If I had a choice in where I was going to live between these three fine countries and it came down to health care systems, I would take my chances in being able to speak French fluently and move to France. If America ever moved to the French model as far as health care and we were still paying more for our health care than Canada and Britain, but a little more, then it would still be a damn good investment for America.