The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

This is the Week Ten thread for the next Presidential Series selection (My Life).

For those of you still acquiring the book, be advised that some folks have run into the problem of the book being now divided into two volumes. We will be reading and discussing the entire work so you will need to get both volumes (Volume I and Volume II). For those of you like myself who have the original hardcopy, that will not be necessary because the hardcopy was just one big book.

The week's reading assignment is:

Week Ten - August 15th - August 21st -> Chapters TWENTY SEVEN, TWENTY EIGHT, and TWENTY NINE p. 399 - 470


We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 13th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to begin reading this selection and/or to post.

Bryan Craig will be your moderator for this selection as he is our lead for all Presidential selections. We hope you enjoy Week Ten of this discussion.

Welcome,

~Bryan

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Bill Clinton

Chapter 27 begins with the New York primary. He got most union endorsements and did well with the Irish voters. However, the New York Times and the Washington Post started looking into Clinton's past. One issue was Whitewater. In 1978, Hillary, Bill, Jim and Susan McDougal took out a $200,000 loan to buy land along the White River hoping to sell it to developers. It never happened. Later, McDougal owned a savings and loan, which went under, and he hired Hillary's firm to work on getting permission from the state's Securities Commission (Clinton appointees) to sell stock. The paper thought there were favoritism and a conflict of interest. The Post learned about poultry waste washing into the rivers. Then during a debate, Clinton admitted he tried pot, but did not inhale. He was getting a bad reputation, but he did win the New York primary. Ross Perot enters the race, which could prove detrimental to Clinton's chances. In May, he visited L.A. after the riots and began to understand the importance of enterprise zones that offered local loans and investments. He won Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Ohio, New Jersey, New Mexico, Alabama, Montana, and California. He went on the Arsenio Hall show playing the sax and tried to focus on specific constituencies and talk about the issues. Clinton spoke at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, but it was difficult. Sister Souljah remarked that blacks should have a week to kill white people. Clinton responded if the words were reversed it sounded like David Duke. Clinton picked Al Gore as his running mate and the Democrats had a good lead coming out of their convention.

In Chapter 28, the Clintons and Gores went on a series of bus tours around the country to hit rural and small town areas, while James Carville and George Stephanopoulos focused on the strategy center in Little Rock. In August, the Republicans cut into Clinton's lead after their convention. Clinton went to Silicon Valley to talk with technology companies who felt they were being forgotten by Bush. Bush and Perot hammed Clinton for being a draft dodger and having a bad character. Three debates were set up, along with a fourth for the running mates. The Bush campaign looked into Clinton's past in England, including searching his passport files. Clinton summed up the debates remarking out of it all, he felt people now felt better about him being a president. On Election Day, Clinton won 43% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes. The economy was the biggest issue.

We learn about his transition in Chapter 29. He put together a transition team, met foreign leaders, and members of Congress. He met with Alan Greenspan to discuss the economy, especially the deficit that worried them, especially since Bush announced the deficit was larger than expected. Clinton created the National Economic Council in the White House to coordinate economic policy over various agencies and put Bob Rubin in charge. He made appointments for cabinet posts and White House staff. In December, he held an economic summit with over 300 attendees. Clinton later met with some key economic advisers to make some difficult decisions on the economy and deficit. He wanted a middle-class tax cut, but that could be a problem. Some argued that the Federal Reserve must be behind Clinton to cut the rates as Clinton reduces the deficit with less federal spending or raise taxes. Bob Reich argued that education, training, and non-defense research had been under-funded and it could help stimulate the economy. What about a stimulus package? They agreed to cut the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years with a $20 billion stimulus package. Clinton had to go back on a campaign promise of asylum for Haitian refugees, and turn them away, because it was unsafe for them to cross the water with their rickety boats. He also had to find a new Attorney General designee, because Zoe Baird employed 2 illegals and failed to pay their Social Security taxes. As the inauguration approached, Hillary was learning her job as First Lady and Clinton lamented that he should have hired more White House Staff.

Folks, Bryan has some personal issues to attend to this week through the 22nd so I am opening up the thread early on his behalf. He was kind enough to set up the thread in advance of his being away.

Please feel free to add your comments and posts as always and if Bryan is able to log in this week then you will hear from him and/or one of the other assisting moderators on his behalf.

This book is terrific and one feels that you are getting to know Clinton on a much more personal level.

Happy posting.

Bentley

Just finished chapter 27, which began with the New York primary. This was my first opportunity to vote in a presidential primary, and it was very important to me (and still is) to be knowledgeable about the candidates and their platforms.

At the time, my college friends and I were very much in favor of Jerry Brown. He had some pretty challenging ideas that thumbed their noses at the status quo (read: 12 years of Republicans in the WH), and we felt that the 13% flat tax would help get the country back on track.

Clinton was still very much an unknown to me, but I was impressed with the outreach he was making towards minorities here in the city and the myriad groups he met with, sometimes with conflicting agendas or just plain controversial (e.g. gays). But despite his efforts, I still favored Brown, and like many of my friends, voted for him during the primary.

I was shattered that Brown not only lost, but came in third place after Paul Tsongas, who left the race not too long after New York. I think Brown (as Clinton briefly mentioned) pissed off some key groups in the last minute, and not just because of his interest in Jesse Jackson as a running mate. Brown was being portrayed as a hippie of old, and some people, especially those not in college at the time, didn't always respond well to that, even if they were Democrats.

One thing that Clinton doesn't mention was that the New York primary was actually featured in an episode of the first Real World series (which also took place in New York). I think all the roommates were also Brown supporters and were also disappointed in his poor showing.

Misty, you seemed to be a real Jerry Brown supporter. And his candidacy did resonate with many. I love this book because it gives different perspectives which many of us never knew about.

I was... I became a Clintonian Democrat eventually because I respected his progressive policies :)

Yes, he was progressive without throwing away common sense yet was compassionate to those less fortunate and still reduced the deficit.

Misty, thank you for your comments; as Bentley (and Clinton) state, it sounds like Brown supporters were quite loyal. It is a testament to Clinton's political skills to bring the Brown people into the fold.

Just a FYI everyone, I will put together a biography of each cabinet officer in the Glossary section, and as you know some of these folks are mentioned in this chapter.

I will do that next week as I'm on vacation right now and have limited internet time. Thanks for your patience.

One of the big things Clinton did in the White House was create the National Economic Council. Here is some information:

The National Economic Council (NEC) was established in 1993 to advise the President on U.S. and global economic policy. It resides within the Office of Policy Development and is part of the Executive Office of the President. By Executive Order, the NEC has four principal functions: to coordinate policy-making for domestic and international economic issues, to coordinate economic policy advice for the President, to ensure that policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's economic goals, and to monitor implementation of the President's economic policy agenda.

The NEC is comprised of numerous department and agency heads within the administration, whose policy jurisdictions impact the nation's economy. The NEC Director works in conjunction with these officials to coordinate and implement the President's economic policy objectives. The Director is supported by a staff of policy specialists in various fields including: agriculture, commerce, energy, financial markets, fiscal policy, healthcare, labor, and Social Security.
(Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administrat...)

Critics argue that it adds another level of bureaucracy where you already have a Council of Economic Advisers, Treasury, Commerce, and Interior Departments. What is your reaction to his creation of the NEC?

Clinton did not mention this in the book, but after Baird dropped out of the Attorney Generalship, his second nominee was Kimba Wood. She also suffered from hiring illegals. Although it was not against the law, she dropped out to pave the way for Janet Reno.

Wood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_Wood

Nannygate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannygate

Finished Ch. 28. [edit: fixed chapter number]

I never understood the appeal of Perot. I personally prefer it when candidates have either some sort of political experience or have engaged in some sort of charity or something similar (like post-WH Carter), and despite having run a billion dollar business, I never felt he was qualified for POTUS. I do wish Clinton described Perot a bit more, and give some details as to why Perot was important to the election. He does, but not in the depth I think would be helpful for posterity.

Bryan wrote: "Clinton did not mention this in the book, but after Baird dropped out of the Attorney Generalship, his second nominee was Kimba Wood. She also suffered from hiring illegals. Although it was not a..."

Didn't he vaguely mention it somewhere in the chapter with the Cuban exiles? I recall he made some reference, but I can't seem to find it on the Kindle.

Misty wrote: "Finished Ch. 28. [edit: fixed chapter number]

I never understood the appeal of Perot. I personally prefer it when candidates have either some sort of political experience or have engaged in some s..."

I agree with you, Misty. It would have been better if Clinton had provided more detail about Perot. Until reading this week's chapters, I had forgotten all about Perot being in that race.

I also do not believe that he was qualified to be president. Running a corporation is not the same as running a country -- in some ways it is the antithesis. The president's/government's primary concern should be the protection of citizens well being -- their rights and property. A corporation's primary concern should be to earn a profit for their shareholders (while operating within the bounds of appropriate laws) -- essentially separating people from their property (their money). Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just doesn't appear to be proper training for a president.

Question for the group: Have we had any presidents elected as "business leaders" rather than having government experience? I'm no expert but none quickly come to mind.

Hard to say how Perot would have done; I am not so sure that a lifetime in politics has prepared some of these folks to serve the people either (smile). I do not think that Perot had the temperament to handle being President while serving others; his personality was rather brittle.

Washington was a Virginia planter but had served in government and the military, Adams was a lawyer and had served in a variety of government capacities including Vice President, Jefferson had served as a founding father and his background was from the genteel class, Madison was similar, Monroe - a lawyer with a military background, John Quincy Adams - a lawyer who had served in a variety of governmental capacities since his youth, Andrew Jackson - lawyer, government positions, and military, Martin Van Buren - lawyer, government positions, Vice President, and the rest of the Presidents seemed to have similar backgrounds. We have had mostly lawyers who have also been active in government, some farmers in the early years of the country, some professors, one actor, some teachers and a few military men. In terms of experience with business or what one might call a business leader, we only had Truman who owned a haberdashery, and of course George W. Bush who had been in the oil business and owned a baseball team. We also have had a couple of former governors which is pretty close to running your own business.

But business leaders like a former CEO of IBM or someone from Wall Street or like a CEO of Exxon for that matter do not always inspire trust in the average American and you can probably understand why.

Maybe Clinton considered Perot a diversion and a person who had gotten into the race to make a point - which he did do successfully; but not one who was really taken seriously. Maybe like a Donald Trump - but a bit different because he was one who stuck it out a bit longer; but like Trump certainly was not going to win.

Bryan when you get back please edit the header for this thread - a few errors.

Thanks Bentley for answering the POTUS-business question so thoroughly.

I was not impressed by Perot either when he ran. I admit freely that I did not vote for the man. It was the way he came off, as Bentley said, something brittle, more confrontational, and you can't be that way all the time. It is hard to run for president and show all sides of your personality. I also felt he did not have the best experience as Bob says.

More information on Perot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

Welcome back; yes I remember Perot and I had a lot to say I guess (lol); I remember his charts!

I cannot imagine how hard it would have been to get anything done had he become president. The man had a point; he made it successfully but still was not going to be voted president - most likely due to his temperament.

Hi Folks

On the subject of Perot I would note that he not only ran a business but also started it - he was a creator of wealth and that is a positive thing. The labor that he saved for firms using his services, while he did make money, improved the lot/situation of most of his customers. He had also had the talent and skil to successfully organize the rescue of his guys in Iran which was written up in the Follet book "on Wings of Eagles"

Ken Follett

A great book. But anyway he succeeded at doing something fo rhis staff that America could not do for our staff at the embassy.

I too think that Perot was ill suited for the presidency but his experience to run the government very possibly was better than being a community organizer, state representative and US senator.

I continue to be impressed but my big note in this group of chapters is (p 410) Clinton's "congenital optimism" - that seems to catch a bit his ability to reorient and restart after obstacles and defeats.

Thanks, Vince. Perot is impressive, I have to agree.

You bring up an important element in Clinton's story: his optimism. I do think it is a key ingredient in his ability to bounce back. Politics is a tough business.

Vince wrote: "Hi Folks

On the subject of Perot I would note that he not only ran a business but also started it - he was a creator of wealth and that is a positive thing. The labor that he saved for firms us..."

Great points and I agree with you as I often do Vince. Yes, his background had "more beef" so to speak but that personality would have been interesting had he won in dealing with Congress and the other branches. It is great when you run your own ship but not so great if you are used to running your own ship and now have to share the stewardship with others. I also wonder if he did not lack one of Clinton's best characteristics - the ability to reorient, regroup, move on and regenerate.

So true, Bentley. Running a government is not the same as running a business. We are seeing many former businesspeople moving into politics, and I think it is a bit of a shock.

I know George W. Bush got some criticism on how he ran his MBA shop-especially about Iraq policy.

So true Bryan about W.

Bryan wrote: "Just a FYI everyone, I will put together a biography of each cabinet officer in the Glossary section, and as you know some of these folks are mentioned in this chapter.

I will do that next week as..."

Thanks to you for the terrific commentary and to all the moderators here for everything you do to keep this place running like a top!

Bryan wrote: "So true, Bentley. Running a government is not the same as running a business. We are seeing many former businesspeople moving into politics, and I think it is a bit of a shock.

I know George W..."

It would be a shock to go from an industry where there is a profit motive into a government agency. How do we measure results? One good way is to look at the financial statements.

Accounting for a profit business vs. a governmental agency is very different. In a business, we want to see how much we earned, what were our expenses, and what was our (hopefully) profit?

In the government, it's all about fund accounting - here's what we had to spend and here's how we spent it all. IMHO that is what is wrong with government. There's no concept of time, and very little concept of spending "our" money wisely. Waste is just built in to the process.

well said, Laura; I believe a government is run differently than a business. I think MBA presidents run into a shock when they come into the office.

I don't beleive government spending is only about fund accounting - the funds must be raised by taxation or fees and there can be, often not, concern for time and cost and efficiencies.

Waste is also built into the process for most large corporations - at least some see some of the activities and expenses as wasteful.

I am not a fan of government management performance but Bush for example did not impose taxes to pay for his wars. - fiscal cowardice.

Obama did not permit the Bush tax cuts to expire as he promised - political cowardice

Obama wants to support programs such as medicare - Social Security but cuts the payroll taxes that support them - fiscal foolishness and political cowardice.

I have mentioned revenues not how to spend the money well but that can be done - hard but it can be done -

Good points, all, Vince!

Making hard fiscal choices are scare these days.