The problem was not in what Edwards said. The problem was that by the time he got on the dais, it was well past 10pm on the east coast—out of TV prime time. The point of debuting your Clintonian golden boy (and is he ever) on TV is to do it to the biggest possible audience. Waiting until 10:22pm EDT, by my clock, was the wrong move and meant Edwards's speechifying did not reach as many people as it might have.

So what happened? They could have cut some of the speakers immediately preceding Edwards; I understood why Governors Ed Rendell, Jennifer Granholm and Bill Richardson spoke, but they were expendable. And they didn't do very good jobs. Rendell went on about hybrid cars and fuel efficiency; Granholm spoke slowly and mentioned cars too; and Bill Richardson's pace was even slower (the guy's oratory style has always put me to sleep anyway). The film of generals and admirals endorsing Kerry and the speech by Gen. John "New Democrat" Shalikashvili (Watch, clip start @2:58:25) were powerful, I wouldn't have cut those. Yet the convention organizers didn't appear to make any moves to tighten things up—unless you count the NPR report of the apparent cancellation of a number by John Cougar Mellencamp.

By my count Sharpton was the biggest reason Edwards started so late. The NPR coverage was invaluable: E.J. Dionne, hardly my favorite talking head, noted that Sharpton had departed extensively from his prepared text. In the end he exceeded his allotted time by some 18-20 minutes. If they had enforced Sharpton's time and cut the three governors, Edwards could have conceivably hit the stage at 9:15 EDT.

Dionne didn't seem to get the full implication of it being Sharpton who put things behind schedule. It was as if Sharpton was still on the Republican payroll. His mission: bump Edwards out of prime time. Every little bit hurts; remember, Dubya "won" Florida by only a few hundred votes.

Speaking of weasels, who saw former NYC mayor Ed Koch early this afternoon, being paraded like a hostage on Fox News airwaves? It seems Democrat Koch is supporting Bush. The reason: He trusts Bush to better handle the war against terror(!). Well if Koch wants to sacrifice the economy, the budget, the environment, civil rights, education, health insurance, international alliances and military readiness, just so Bush can keep playing at being Commander in Chief and ignore his Daily Briefings, well fine. I hope he and other GOP-symp weasels Zell Miller and Griffin Bell enjoy speaking in tongues at the Republican convention in New York. And I hope Al Sharpton joins them.

Back

Back

Today, Mr_Blog was going to go with a vicious parody at the expense of King County Executive Ron Sims, but that can keep until another day. Instead, I want to take a look at the strange case of Sandy Berger, National Security Haberdasher.

The AP broke the story on Monday, July 19. Here are the main points:

"Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, is the focus of a criminal investigation into whether he improperly removed notes and classified documents from the National Archives during preparations for hearings by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Berger said he inadvertently took some documents from the archives but was not trying to withhold information from the commission.
. . .
Three government officials who have been briefed on the investigation said Berger had removed handwritten notes and classified documents from a private room at the National Archives where he was preparing for his March 24 testimony. The officials declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

Two of the officials said Berger was reportedly seen stuffing some of the material into his clothing.
. . .
'I deeply regret the sloppiness involved but had no intention of withholding documents from the Commission and, to the contrary, to my knowledge every document requested by the Commission from the Clinton Administration was produced,' Berger said in a statement Monday night. Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room. But, he said, he could not locate two or three copies of the millennium terror report.

'When I was informed by the archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,' he said. The archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.
. . .
David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, 'I think it's more innocent than it looks.'
. . .
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, said Tuesday the Berger investigation will not impact the panel's work in any way. The 10-member bipartisan panel releases its final report on Thursday. 'This is a matter between the government and an individual,' he said. 'They were not our documents, and we believe we have access to all the materials we need to see to do our report.'
. . .
One of Berger's lawyers, Lanny Breuer, said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

The Archives, which is the nation's repository for presidential papers, is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.

Berger was allowed to take handwritten notes. He knew that taking his own notes out of the secure reading room violated archives procedures. But, Breuer said, 'I do not believe he acted illegally at all. He acted lawfully but admittedly sloppily'."

Pretty balanced so far: notes and copies of documents; put them in his clothing (pockets?); it was inadvertent; David Gergen says it's no big deal. But that was Monday. By Tuesday, Fox News picked up the story. Fox took most of the story from the AP wire, but with a difference:

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

"Clothing" has become "jacket, pants and socks." Moreover, it attributes the admission to Berger himself, though it's not in the AP story. The leather portfolio is new information, though. And at least it is still clear in Fox's story that what Berger "knowingly" took were the handwritten notes—notes he was allowed to make—and that he says removal of the copies of classified documents (no originals) was accidental, in the portfolio.

Later in the day (approximately 9:30 pm PDT), Fox News cousin The New York Post adds to the story. Instead of notes and copies of documents in his clothing, Berger is now

"under criminal investigation for sneaking top-secret documents out of the National Archives in his pants legs and, possibly, his socks"

Luckily, John Kerry is not Al Gore. Kerry (Berger has had to bow out as a campaign adviser) has gone public charging a leak, for the purpose of diverting attention from negatives in the final report by the 9/11 Commission—which just so happens to have been previewed today. The White House initially issued denials, saying the White House didn't even know about the Berger investigation. But now (1505 PDT) CNN reports that Scott McClellan admits some people at the White House did know.

Time to connect the dots. Go back to the original story: who told the AP about the investigation? The National Archives? No, let's dissect the story. The quote is

"Three government officials who have been briefed on the investigation said [that Archives staff witnessed Berger's actions.]"

"the officials said Berger was reportedly seen stuffing some of the material into his clothing."

It wasn't the Archives, or investigators—it was "officials." Who were the officials? We don't know:

The officials declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

In other words, they were "informed sources," and it was a leak. Then Fox and the Post juiced it up with pants and socks.

Wolf Blitzer is on CNN right now (1440 PDT), interviewing Senators Saxby Chambliss (R) and Ron Wyden (D). Wyden maintained that Berger's actions were inadvertent and, most importantly, that there was no threat to national security. Chambliss characterized Berger's explanation as "returned most of them, and the dog ate the rest," as well as "odd and bizarre." While praising Berger's past service (yeah, right), Chambliss raised a popular specter, Unanswered Questions, to keep the scandal (that's what CNN is calling it now in their screencrawl) going. This is how the sides are forming. Stay tuned.

Sidebar: White House Tap Dance (5:50 pm). I highly recommend the following report from Democracy Now!, containing audio of Scott McClellan evading questions from Helen Thomas. All she wanted to know was, would Bush follow Tony Blair's example, and take full responsibility for leading the nation to war based on false pretenses? Listen (Realaudio).

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

I've always read the comics in the newspaper. But in our internet era I usually check the newspapers online during the week, so I don't see the funnies. Therefore on Sundays I get a Times/P-I delivered so I can get a weekly fix of Dilbert and Doonesbury. The new Opus strip is still in shakedown mode. Sherman's Lagoon also makes me chuckle, I don't know why.

I skip over most of the strips. Cathy is tiresome; Gas Alley is crotchety; Family Circus is just plain nauseating. But the one I currently find hateful is Mallard Fillmore, scrawled by a Bruce Tinsley. It is, to put it charitably, a conservative strip. It is the kind of conservative strip that was chosen because the editors no doubt had the following meeting:

"Say there Gus."
"G'morning Sam."
"Gus, the right-wingers have been sending us letters complaining about Doonesbury."
"Again? What's their beef this time?"
"The usual: 'it's too liberal; it's biased; the comics page isn't balanced'."
"But we have B.C."
"I think Johnny Hart is too moderate for them."
"OK. So contact King Features and get the most idiotically ultra-right comic they have."
"You got it, Gus."

The eponymous character is a green-headed duck who usually spouts some kind of right-wing claptrap. In the July 18 strip, the duck is watching the Tour de France on TV. He is cheering for Americans in the three week race—Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, Bobby Julich and, of course, Lance Armstrong. "This year," thinks the duck, "there's actually a chance that the top three places could go to Americans!"

Comics are often written weeks, if not months in advance of publication. So the duck's hope for an all-American podium in Paris is not coming to pass. Leipheimer is in the best position for a #2 finish, in 10th place after today's Stage 15. But Julich crashed on Sunday when his handlebars were caught by the side mirror of a Tour car; he sits in 49th place. And Hamilton abandoned the race on Saturday. (There are also three other Americans in the Tour, two on Postal; I guess George Hincapie, Floyd Landis and Christian Vandevelde haven't captured Tinsley's imagination.)

But in the strip, the duck's reverie is spoiled not by the race results, but by a TV announcer who says:

"See?! This is why the rest of the world hates America."

What the hell??? Is Tinsley one of those neocons with a persecution complex? You know the type: 'Nobody likes America! They hate us... because they're jealous! They want all our stuff!'

I hope Tinsley was actually watching Saturday's Stage 13 won by Armstrong. The day concluded with a 16 km, 7.8% "haute category" climb up to the Plateau de Beille. The custom is for spectators to line the route, running alongside and shouting encouragement to the racers. Hey Tinsley, did you see the throng of Spaniards, French and Basques cheering Lance? Did you see the happy wackos decked out in American flags and longhorn helmets? Did anyone boo him or the US Postal jersey? They did not, because they don't hate America, or Americans. They hate Bush. Neo-cons seem to get confused on this regard, as they equate feelings for Country with feelings for the Leader. That's not the way the USA is supposed to work. What system of government equates a country with its leader? Yes, it's fascist dictatorship.

Perhaps the crowds know what Tinsley appears not to—that cycling is a team sport, the stars don't do it all on their own. And there are no national teams in the Tour. Sponsors are companies. US Postal is just a sponsor of Armstrong's team, his teammates are Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, and Russian, as well as Americans. Postal is not the 'American team,' anymore than Phonak is American because Hamilton is a member, or CSC is American due to the presence of Julich.

Has the media even been anti-American? It doesn't appear so, the 2004 Tour has verged on a love fest for Armstrong. Although the run up to the race included warmed-over allegations about doping and a libel suit by Lance, the European media also featured stories about the improvement in relations between him and the fans, how Armstrong seemed much friendlier and relaxed, and how the public has responded in kind. Any pre-race controversy does not seem to have followed Armstrong on the race route.

This year there are no cries of "Dopé", only awe and respect for the Texan, who today beat Ivan Basso to the line to win Stage 15 and retake the yellow jersey—maybe for good. A historic sixth straight victory in Paris is his to lose. It looks like the only dopé around here is Bruce Tinsley and his strange brand of nationalistic self-pity.

Sidebar: Mork De Ork. You know who gets it? Robin Williams. Lance's second-best buddy (because Sheryl Crow is the default #1) choppered in to see Stage 15 and rode in the US Postal team car up to the finish line in Villard-de-Lans. "I was there to hand out water, and gels—or as we call it, 'Goo'," Williams said in a hilarious and enthusiastic interview on OLN.

Williams took note of the international and multilingual effort that is world-class bicycle racing. He joked that in the Postal car the

"mood was very exciting because it's a 'United Nations' car, there are people speaking Flemish, 'Spanith'... French, which is necessary en France... German, which we must speak occasionally in France, every so often."

Williams seemed to be saying, It's the Tour de France, but it belongs to everyone.

Back

Am I the only one left with the impression that Dubya & Co. are manipulating terrorism warnings and the DHS color-code system for political gain? Well I decided to investigate, and came up with the graph below.

One of my few fond memories of being a University of Washington undergraduate majoring in Political Science was reading the works of Edward Tufte. Tufte is a political economist whose forte is statistics. In one of his books, Political Control of the Economy, Tufte made observations about changes in economic policy (Fed changes in the money supply, timing of Social Security COLAs, etc.) and the electoral cycle (Election Days). What was fun was that Tufte seemed to be saying look, these are just statistics. They don't prove the party in power manipulates policy for electoral gain—but it sure is amazing how one follows the other so closely.

How I did it. Thus inspired, I set out to gather data. First, I perused my War Against Error news chronology, picking out a list of the biggest things I thought Dubya, Dick et al would want to downplay (Ken Lay indicted) or exploit (Saddam captured). These "News" items are the purple symbols on the graph, + for good news, dots for neutral or bad news:

Next, Dubya's approval ratings seemed like a good (inverse) indicator of Bush desperation. I obtained these data (thanks, USA Today!) and plotted them as the red line (thanks, Excel!). Third, I went to the DHS web page and figured out all the times the official alert status has been raised. Finally, I Googled several variations of the term bush|ridge|cheney warn terror|threat color attack to find instances when the Administration made statements warning of terror threats but didn't raise the color status. The combined list of terror warnings with and without color changes are the blue lines:

That was the process, and the order in which the steps were performed. I didn't cherry-pick news that happened when Bush's ratings were down, or when the warnings occurred. I leave the cherrypicking to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

The Graph. As we would expect, the News drives Bush's rating: good news usually sends the red line up (sometimes it's flat or flattish); bad news usually sends it down. What we also find is that the blue lines coincide with downturns or troughs in the red line: when Bush's approval level is down or climbing out of a dip, out comes a terror alert! In all but one case, the alert is followed by an upswing in the approval curve.

Remember, this doesn't prove Bush is manipulating terror warnings for electoral gain—but it sure is amazing how one follows the other so closely.

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

"A trial lawyer is running for high national office.
A man with little experience in elective office.
A man with no experience in foreign affairs.
Trials lawyers are sleazy, greedy, unprincipled liberals.
They sue companies and pocket huge fees, passing the higher costs on to stockholders, customers and all of us in higher insurance premiums.
We can't afford a trial lawyer.
America can't afford... Abraham Lincoln."
I'm John C. Breckinridge, and I approve this ad

Sidebar: The most ridiculous thing I've heard in the past week is the GOP spinners who, with one side of their mouth, say that John Edwards has no foreign policy experience. Never mind that a duty of the Senate is to approve treaties and advise and consent on ambassadorial appointments. It's in the Constitution (Article 2)—so it's not surprising the GOP's talking heads aren't familiar with it. Then out of the other side, they claim that Dubya had such experience as of 2000, because Texas shares a border with Mexico.

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

So the final version of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on prewar intel has been released, and, as already previewed, the "intelligence community" is the whipping boy. It all seems persuasive, but. . .

Cast your mind back to the months before the invasion of Iraq. Remember the daily drumbeat of news stories indicating that war was inevitable? Now read just a few of the earlier accounts that reconstruct what happened:

"between Oct. 7 [2002], when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28 [2003], when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq." Source

"[T]he president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate. At cabinet meetings, [Paul O'Neill] says the president was 'like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection,' forcing top officials to act 'on little more than hunches about what the president might think.'
       '. . .From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime' " Source

"[Tenet] said the agency never described Iraq as 'an imminent threat' in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion" Source

"Tenet told the committee he personally intervened on several occasions to correct public statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney falsely claiming 'conclusive evidence' of Iraqi efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Tenet revealed he learned just last week that in August 2002, senior aides to Vice President Cheney were presented—without the CIA's knowledge—false and misleading evidence linking Saddam and al Qaeda by Pentagon officials running a separate intelligence unit. The vice president trumpets this evidence today despite repeated warnings about its veracity." Source

And finally, thanks to O'Neill's book we also know that the plan (or rather PNAC's plan) to invade Iraq existed from the earliest days after Bush took (he sure did!) office.

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

LOOK OUT!!!
"What? Where?"
Oh, nothing.
"Hey, aren't you..."
Bill Frist of Tennessee: physician and senator. I'm here to serve.
"You can begin by telling me why you screamed in my ear."
I guess I got carried away.
"Yeah, what's up with that?"
I noticed you might have been about to cross the street-
"Actually I was just standing here enjoying the sunshine, wondering what I'm going to do this afternoon. Anyway, what were you warning me about?"
I thought a car was going to hit you.
"Gosh! Was a car coming?"
I can't tell you that.
"Because I didn't see- you can't tell me?"
You don't have to worry or anything. Just- LOOK OUT!!!
"What now?"
Nothing.
"Would you STOP that???"
THERE'S NO NEED FOR PANIC, SIR!
"No problem there-"
JUST, JUST GO ABOUT YOUR NORMAL LIFE!
"Okay."
BUT BE WATCHFUL!
"But there's no car coming."
LOOK, IF THERE'S NO CAR IN SIGHT, THAT'S EVIDENCE THERE WILL BE A CAR SOON.
"That's very familiar logic. Who told you that?"
Rumsfeld. SO BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! BUT THERE'S NO REASON FOR CONCERN.
"Look, can you tell me how long I need to be 'watchful'?"
Until November.
"You don't have any idea at all, do you?"
Well... No.
"You should be ashamed of yourself."
Sorry. I'm sorry.
"I think I see what's going on here. Maybe this afternoon I'll see a movie."
I hear Dodgeball is very good.
"I was thinking Fahrenheit 9/11."

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

After an early summer surge, the growth in job creation has slowed. The Department of Labor says only 112,000 new jobs were added last month, well below expectations. The official unemployment rate, which doesn't count those who have given up looking for work, remains at 6.5%.

What this all means is that Bush, down anywhere from 2.2 to 2.5 million in terms of the numbers of jobs lost during his administration, has managed to add back only 1.5 million since last fall, approximately. The latest subpar results lessen the likelihood of even getting back to 2001 levels.

Yet Bush's earnest self-delusion continues, and in a way that highlights his inability to verbalize anything remotely self-critical (for example, mangling the "fool me twice" adage, and the bewildering mispronunciations of 'Abu Ghraib'):

"We're witnessing steady growth, steady growth. And that's important. We don't need, uh, boom or bust type growth, we want just steady, consistent growth, so that our fellow citizens will be able to find a job."
Listen to clip (@ :02:58)

That's how he said it: with the emphasis on the indefinite article. Not a good job. Not a well-paying job. Not a career. Not even "uh fantahstick jahb", as Gov. Schwarzenpfefferincorporated promised his Californians last year.

A job. Well thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart. Excuse me, but a net job loss of a million, level jobless rate, rampant underemployment and a slowing rate of new job creation is not proof of "steady and consistent growth"—unless he means the growth in his administration's mediocrity.

Almost lost in the—OK, we'll call it 'hoopla'—over today's selection of TV psychic John Edwards as the Democratic running mate, is news of a Senate report (read it before it's archived) that before the invasion the CIA knew Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs. But they didn't tell Dubya:

The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

I can almost hear Fox News blaring the good news: It wasn't Bush's fault! It was Tenet! Four more years! But wait! Keep reading:

...analysts may have misrepresented information, writing reports that distorted evidence in order to bolster their case that Iraq did have chemical, biological and nuclear programs, according to government officials...

Doesn't that sound familiar?

The Senate found, for example, that an Iraqi defector who supposedly provided evidence of the existence of a biological weapons program had actually said he did not know of any such program.
. . . Senior C.I.A. analysts became convinced that [a shipment of aluminum tubes] was strong evidence that Mr. Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. ...But other government experts... argued that the tubes seemed designed for use in conventional military rockets.
...the C.I.A. selectively sought to prove its case... C.I.A. disclosed the initial—and successful—test results to support its assertion that the tubes could be used to help produce nuclear weapons. Only later did the C.I.A. report results that showed that the tubes ultimately failed in testing.

Gasp. CIA lied??? Now why would they do that? Maybe for the same reason that Tenet assured Bush that the case for WMD was a slam dunk. It was what the White House wanted to hear. They had already decided to go to war. They had the truth, from people like Clarke and Wilson, but they chose to go with anything that would make the case for invasion stronger.

This attempt to put all the blame on CIA is a diversion. We can conclude this, not only because it is being put out by a Republican-controlled Senate committee, but also because before the war Bush wasn't relying solely on CIA for its intel. Cheney and Rumsfeld had created their own intelligence group at the Pentagon to cherry-pick the best pro-invasion data, and they did it precisely because they thought the information they were getting from the intelligence community wasn't pro-war enough. The conclusions of this "Office of Special Plans" were just as rosy as CIA's, if not more so, staffed as it was by a hand-picked group of hawks; the White House was perfectly happy to snort up the little packets of phony intel provided by Ahmed Chalabi & Co.

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)

Bill Clinton's book tour is going gangbusters, so it was inevitable that other Bubba-oriented books would be rushed out to capitalize on the public's appetite. First up, a biography penned by Helen Fielding as only she can. Following are excerpts from the closely guarded manuscript, courtesy of our connections at Probability Cottage Press.

Bill Clintons's Diary
by Helen Fielding

My Administration
I Will: Faithfully execute the duties of the office of President; be a better husband and father; build peace in Northern Ireland; snarl traffic in Seattle as many times as possible; party hearty!

1993
January 20. Inaugurations: 1 (awesome!); inaugural balls: 12; Big Macs: 5; Fleetwood Mac songs: innumerable.
•I took the oath of office today. It was more than I ever imagined. It was so moving—the shining faces of the thousands lining Pennsylvania Avenue, so full of hope, so eager to see what lies ahead— I feel awed by the responsibility they have placed in me, yet confident that great days are ahead for America.
•Saw another Saturday Night Live skit where Phil Hartman plays me as a fat junk food junkie. Hillary told the Secret Service "no more McDonalds." I told the boys "she didn't say anything about Taco Time."
•I didn't want to go to the MTV inaugural ball. Damn network that asked me the 'boxers or brief' question. But George Stephanopolous played the Stevie Nicks card. "Stevie will be there," he promised. Stevie was great, but Christine McVie—WOW! Note to self: No more Fleetwood Mac in this Administration. "Don't Stop" 50 zillion times on the campaign trail was enough for a lifetime.
•Approved hiring of Linda Tripp (v. v. homely), on recommendation of Pres. Bush. Assigned her to Vince Foster.
. . .
November 17. Freeways shut down: 1; thrown fish caught: 1; la-tays: 14.
•APEC ministerial meeting, Seattle. This city fucking LOVES me! Shut down the main freeway for a motorcade anywhere else and you'd be burned in effigy, then recalled from office. But Seattlites just smile and scream my name like I'm the Beatles. Then they throw a salmon at you and stick a big coffee in your hand. Although here they call them "la-tays." Shook hands with the CEO of something called "Starbucks", gave him the chance to donate to the reelection fund. Turns out Starbucks makes these la-tays in a few coffee shops around town. Joke with him that he ought to sell franchises, he'd take over the world.
. . .
1994
July 15. Big Macs: 2 (I'm trying); health care reform commissions: 1; blow jobs: 3 (v. good).
•That fucking, fucking Paula Jones. The only reason I asked her up to that room was that we were closing on the Whitewater partnership, and I needed the papers notarized. "I'm a notary," she piped up from behind the registration desk. Stupid, stupid, STUPID! Those days are over; now I have Janet Reno notarize all my documents.
. . .
1995
November 26. GOP-controlled branches of government: 1; Omnibus spending bills: 1; Big Macs: 4; blowjobs: 26 (v. v. good).
•First we lose the House, now Gingrich has shut down the government. Most federal employees aren't at work, even the kid whose job it is to warn me whenever Hillary leaves the Residence.
•I have a new intern, Monica. She's great, we've really bonded during the shutdown. She taught me how to make dormitory phad thai on a hotplate, just ramen, a can of Dinty Moore stew and Tabasco. Embarrassing moment: I spilled some Dinty Moore on her new blue dress. To apologize, I gave her a black Army Rangers beret that I bought at the Pentagon gift shop. It goes well with her hair.
. . .
1998
January 27. balanced budget: 1 (surplus next year); Big Macs: 3; blowjobs: 0.
•Ken Starr thinks there's something between me and Monica! I'm so sure, she's only like my best friend. And what does this have to do with real estate, anyway? Starr has been coming and going at the White House a lot, Secret Service asked me what his code-name should be; I suggested "Cotton Mather."
. . .
December 20. Bosnian Muslims protected: 947,000; U.S. troops lost: 0; Big Macs: 3; Doritos (bags): 4.
•The bastards impeached me yesterday. ME! Afterward, Hyde came by to discuss a tax credit rider, and I invited him to sit on the dais at the Gridiron dinner. "And bring your girlfriend," I added, intending it to sound clever. But it came out sounding mean-ish.
•Chelsea and Monica talked on the phone for over an hour, those two have really become close, like sisters. They went shopping at Tysons Corner this morning—I think I'm getting a Nordstrom tie for Christmas. Chelsea said Monica is holding up OK, but misses the White House awfully. She wants me to call, because she has an idea about China and technology transfer.
•I get the last laugh: today's polling shows my approval ratings are UP.
. . .
1999
February 12. Apologies to Hillary: 36; Big Macs: 1; champagne (glasses): 2.
•We're going to Me-xi-co! We'll spend the first day talking to El Presidente about trade and immigration, but after that it's Cozumel, baby! Madeleine Albright knows this cantina where they have 8 oz. tequila shooters and fajitas puerco to die for. I only hope I can drag myself away long enough to try my luck on a marlin boat.
•Oh, and the Senate voted to aquit me.
. . .
2000
July 26. Apologies to Hillary: 46; hot dog eating championships: 1.
•Camp David. Where did it all go wrong? Maybe we didn't do enough at Oslo, maybe the agenda was too ambitious.
•It got off to a good start. After their wives dropped them off at the bus station, Ehud and Yasser shared the bus ride chatting about hobbies, sports and the Old Testament.
•The summit never really hit its stride. I should have known we were in for trouble the very first day when Yasser got into some poison oak. Then he fell and broke his glasses, and got his kaffiyeh tangled in some blackberry bushes.
•I really thought they would achieve something significant on Sports Day. Nothing builds mutual understanding like being team members in a potato sack race, but that Yasser— he's just not coordinated. And Ehud really needs to work on his sportmanship, you don't taunt someone with "baby, crying baby, run home to mommy" and then expect to conduct serious diplomacy. Yasser said "you'll be singing a different tune after an Intifada," and I said "whatifada?" Ehud just said "oh, something Arab," and demanded that we all go canoeing.
•It was something of a relief when I had to leave to go to the convention. I think Al is going to make an excellent President. He just needs to do what I told him: remember your ideals; ask yourself what Jefferson would have done; don't pick a right wing schmuck to be your running mate. Wait, what do I have to worry about? I mean really—George W. Bush? LMAO.
. . .
Summary of my Administration:

Balanced budget: yes
Surplus: yes
Stock market: Through the roof
Interest rates: reeeeeally low
Inflation: what's that?
Irish accord: yes
Kosovo protected: yes
Rwanda: Oops
Interstate 5 shutdown: 1, and how, baby!
Counseling sessions: 86 (v. good)
La-tays: 126
Big Macs: 397
Blowjobs: 42 (v. v. v. good)

All in all, a successful 8 years!

Back | Comments (remove NOSPAM)