Another The Daily Show interview that people must see in its entirety.  This Bill Clinton interview is one of the greatest insights to what the US has faced since the 90s.  But it was cut short on the show due to time constraints.  But thanks to the internet and The Daily Show, we can see the whole interview.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part 1

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part 2

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part 3

 

  No wonder Bill Clinton was president for 2 terms.  This is a guy in the know and can get things done.  But I especially liked what he said about "keep stumbling in the right direction."  That right there, probably is the essence of democracy.

hansioux 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(4) 人氣()


留言列表 (4)

發表留言
  • dorasaga
  • You should also check some later speeches by Margaret Thatcher. Or the Ahminejed interview when he came to USA and was insulted in that infamous Columbian speech. You might like them--the great thinkers who have been leading their respective country.

    Honestly speaking, I'm no fan of Bill. He's cool, an intelligent man. But his actions defied the federal-state system to its core, the very core that defined the United STATES. He in realto expanded the power of the executive branch (the president and his secretaire). Conservatives like to blame Bush for betraying them, but the Fed has been crouching out of its den since Bill Clinton.

    Other than that, Bill's a good soul. The Lewinski case was unfortunate. Americans cared about this case, and the image of Bill that should reflect of his legacy was hit hard.
  • I think you have a different definition of "the conservatives". The last that I know, very few republicans or libertarians are blaming Bush for anything, at least not openly.

    In my opinion, any president that wants to achieve something and doesn't have the majority in the senate would attempt to expand executive power. Executive power has been expended since the age of Thomas Jefferson, and he is one of the banner figure of conservatism.

    hansioux 於 2009/09/21 18:30 回覆

  • dorasaga
  • Bush expanded executive power into a promise of indefinity through wiring and the Security reasons after 911. He also failed to rennovate the Social Security system as he promised in his 2000 campaign, that most conservatives hoped. I probably missed a few discussions, but we can check and see how many conservative voices were there against Bush Jr.

    My easiest definition of conservatism is the way of maintaining the founding system of the United States: Check and balance. A big part of it is a union of states within the federation, small fed., autonomy of state power. Stay away from free economy, and stay away from private sectors.

    Granted, all presidents were thinking of expanding their power in order to do more. But to a different degree, a president might be more conservative and stay away from intervention in private sectors, state rulings, and relative affairs.

    Truman and Eisenhower would like to desegregate local systems, but they also pulled off when any effort interfered state policies. They would only work within the federal reign of control (revised time after time, of course).

    Another way of expanding fed control comes into play by manipulating economy, the private sector. One way Clinton achieved in big govt. was to resell fed-owned resources (such as oil wells and the rights of investing reserved lands and water), and used economy agreements as baits to increase his power to negotiate with big firms. He also installed policies that regulate banking, stock, and housing. Probably in general, against Clinton's will, these encouraged the un-transparent use of remortgaging and second prime.

    Smart moves, increased temporary incomes. But are those what the fed is there for?

    Maybe I regressed. But the point is, Clinton was very active when it comes to manipulating private sectors, unlike his predecessors. Bush and Truman weren't even close when we are talking about the Clinton Way.
  • Like you said, when the Union first formed, States had tremendous power compares to what we have today. However, it is interesting that it was the "conservative presidents" who ends up expanding executive power and taking state power. There are several books on this and I won't pretend to be an expert. But Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt and George W. Bush are the main figures that greatly expanded executive power. I don't even recall what Bill Clinton did that comes remotely close to what these guys did.

    Thomas Jefferson, a huge proponent of state power and skeptic of the federal government, secretly arranged the purchase Louisiana without congress approval.

    Andrew Jackson, a conservative who is against the idea of national bank, declared that the president is the direct representation of the people and the nation more so than congress.

    Abraham Lincoln (probably considered a liberal for his policies, and establishment of the national bank) suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.

    William McKinley, also a conservative, manipulated public opinions by controlling news media and gained public support to war with Spain and controlled Cuba and the Philippines. And he also annexed The Kingdom of Hawaii.

    And I am sure we all know what Franklin Roosevelt and George W. Bush did. Albeit Roosevelt is often regarded as a liberal in policies. But what I am saying is, it doesn't matter what a presidents political stance is, if he needed something to be done and he can't achieve it through the way of congress, they'd try to expand executive power. And for some weird reason it happens more often with the conservative presidents.

    Clinton's goal was to eliminate deficit. And he achieved that goal. I thought that is one thing the conservatives in theory can appreciate. Even though "conservative" George W. Bush somehow dug a huge hole in government spending after taking office, even before the 2 wars... Small Fed, small government spending = conservatives? That my friend, might be a myth....

    hansioux 於 2009/09/22 19:32 回覆

  • dorasaga
  • A sidenote: Andrew Jackson was a King. If he reran for the third term, that would be it. But he stepped down. And he would be remembered as a great president (with a debatable policy on Native Americans).

    And I was bringing up how polarization happens. The deeds of the Clinton can be virtue to one side while vice to the other. It is tough for me to criticize conservative virtues. But I want you know what Conservatives think of Clinton.

    Each thing I don't like about Clinton is loved by so many. I cannot change your stance or say why you should find false in him. Likewise, I cannot deny Clinton's legacies. But just like what I said above, and a milliard of Conservatives (true conservatives than I am) had claimed, Bush Jr. betrayed them, betrayed the Conservatives who supported him.

    Bush is a great guy. You can tell, politicians around the world found him the best pal. Tony Blair, Koizumi. They found a friend in him. Bush is a fine soul to know and do things with. Unfortunately, he translated too much of his heat into his presidency. And the country is lost now.

    Perhaps public consent was true, that back in the campaign of 2004, the previous battle between Gore and Bush left a bad taste, and not a finish. That had polarized the nation and brought back more issues about fundamentals of the left or the right in 2004.

    I think Clinton didn't need to worry about these, while the economy was heading right. Perhaps he was lucky, and better remembered as the lucky star.
  • I am a true believer of free market as are most of the Liberal Americans. I think the general divergence on the issues like government oversights and regulations is about the "definition of free market".

    The conservatives baffles me with the concept that "free market" somehow means nothing should be done and just let the market run its course.

    To me, "Free Market" means a "fair market" where everyone is "free to compete in". And that essentially is why oversight and regulations are needed, to prevent people or cooperation cornering off the market. The market isn't free if it is dictated by a few monopolies. It's not free for the entrepreneurs, not free for the laborers and not free for the consumers. And that would be the result if there are no oversights and regulations, an unfree market.

    That's why we have the Sherman Antitrust Act, (albeit passed under President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, back when that word meant liberals). And that came from the experience of government not doing anything to regulate the market back in the ages of rail road and steel tycoons. The result is extreme poverty and no social justice for the laborers.

    hansioux 於 2009/09/25 18:38 回覆

  • dorasaga
  • I forgot who said that (probably Keynesians?), that Monopoly leads to inefficiency, and destroys free market. And I believe the Antitrust was passed at a time when "bureaucracy" was also considered "good," an organized way to efficiently handle state affairs and those that concerns individual citizens.

    But then, bureaucracy let itself overgrow, inefficiently, so then, disappointment came out. Conservatives cried out loud. I think the problem to "maintain free market" would be that Liberalism will use any means, including extended federal power and bigger government, in order to solve problems of market (in-)transparency and ultimately, efficiency. It would be the methods as such that many would disagree...

    IIt might also be less of a concern, as liberalism would tie in free market with "social justice." Because the market should be able to replace inefficient ones with more efficient ones. Justice comes after the market runs efficiently.

    The problem with monopolies are that they not only control the market, but also the govt., which should be the monitor, not the boss who runs the details. But the govt. usually side with monopolies (bribes, economic dependency, etc). To break that apart would lead to transparent market and more efficient market.

    Why were we mentioning war? By the way... The time of colonization. The global trend was there that foreign policies centered around wars and seize of new lands. As much hated as they were, USA thought they can stay away from imperialism, and offered autonomy after a year or two of direct control. The islands were more like modern Singapore and Canada to Great Britain, than India to the Crown.

    Even said so, it was a shame that USA couldn't stop and negotiate with the Filipino guerrillas earlier. The Cuban Revolution was a slap in the face. Destroying of the Hawaiian monarchy was partly a threat to Great Britain, and partly economic (rights of sea and fishing). I can't see how they are related to Conservatism. Any govt. with a navy could have done those. Be it Spain or Japan. USA got them earlier. They were building a bigger fleet and extending the Monroe Doctrines to all seas.
  • I find it strange to justify colonialism with "anyone would have done it, why blame us are getting dibs..." Colonial era practices are no longer accepted in current international affairs because they were not the right thing to do and it destabilizes world and social stability. It did exactly that during WWI and WWII, and pretty much is the foundations of a lot of armed conflicts around the world. As Taiwanese we can understand that better than most people because we have first hand experience of over 600 years of colonial abuse.

    I don't think President McKinley was right to manipulate the media to make congress start a war with Spain under public pressure. Definitely don't agree with his decision and methods that annexed the Kingdom of Hawai'i. And he happened to be a conservative.

    It so happens that President Bush Jr. incited the Iraq war with almost the same technique as President McKinley's War with Spain. Just so happens President Bush Jr. is also a conservative.

    Whether or not what their policies was inline with the conservative agenda, people should be careful not to put these kind of people in charge. Because believing a goal beneficial to the US justifies achieving it by any means necessary, is harmful to the US in the long run. Especially when this is an age that requires international cooperation to ensure future survival of mankind.

    To show you how scary that type of logic can be, just think, the government decides an island in the Pacific is crucial to national defense and economical strategy, so it is worth acquiring by any means necessary, war, distortion, economic pressure.

    Now imagine that government is China.

    hansioux 於 2009/09/25 22:50 回覆