On Sunday’s edition of the Chris Matthews Show (syndicated by NBC), Time managing editor Richard Stengel applied the usual superlatives to Bill Clinton, in describing how he will overshadow any mere Vice President if Hillary is elected: "But the other thing that’s going to be hard is, if you have Michael Jordan on your team, i.e., Bill Clinton when it's a troubled game, aren't you going to call him and say, ‘Let's play?’ If you're the Vice President, you're completely eclipsed by him."
This Michael Jordan encomium means more coming from Stengel, who played some college B-ball for Princeton.
Stengel also felt the 2008 race was shaping up like Bill’s win in 1992, on the heels of a "Bush recession." Chris Matthews previewed that chat: "When we come back, Republicans already have an unpopular war to run on. Now it looks like a recession. Are they bound to lose in November?"
Matthews echoed that thought on the other side of the commercial break: "If past elections in bad economic times are any guide at all, Republicans have a steep cliff to climb this year. Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. are two examples where the party in control, the president control, lost in a bad economy. As if the Iraq war and an unpopular George W. Bush weren’t enough, as recently as last week the Republican candidates were denying out there that things are getting as bad as they seem."
He asked Stengel if any Republican can win, and Stengel replied: "Can any Republican win with this? In some ways it helps Romney because he's the turnaround guy. He can say, ‘I fixed the Olympics, I fixed Massachusetts, I can do this.’ But the problem is it’s so hard to run against the economy. It’s a redux of '92 when Bill Clinton ran against the Bush recession. Now they're going to run against a Bush Recession II."
(MRC transcript by Geoff Dickens.)
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I would disagree with the
January 22, 2008 - 11:06 ET by BruzillaI would disagree with the idea that anyone in a Clinton White House is ever going to have to "call Bill". Bill Clinton is obviously obsessed with polishing his tarnished legacy, and he's going to be a fifth wheel in everything that happens in that White House. No one is going to need to call him because he's always going to be there already.
→ Too quick Bruzilla
January 22, 2008 - 11:13 ET by Cool ArrowYou summed it up in a nutshell. Except he'll be swilling Jack Daniels to keep his Karl Malden nose shiny.
I ♣ My Seal
The "recession"
January 22, 2008 - 11:22 ET by iveseenitallWell, here it is--the "recession" the media has been rooting for."The Economy Sucks"-that's what the MSM is printing, right before they get into their limos to go celebrate at cocktail parties in Washington and New York. And if by chance it is sooo bad, who will "suffer"?--not them; that's for sure.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Well
January 22, 2008 - 11:34 ET by cvgbuckeyeThats what our "Proud Free, Unbiased Press" has reduced themselves to rooting for 4 things:
1. 10 American Marines to be killed a day in Iraq.
2. 1000 Americans per day to lose their homes
3. That the perpetrator of killing 3000 Americans on 9/11 continues to go free
4. An ex-US President that was a common rapist in OUR White House to be there again
They should be quite proud of themselves
I've been thinking about all
January 22, 2008 - 11:49 ET by BruzillaI've been thinking about all the recessions I've lived through. There's this one that no one seems to know if it's even a recession or not. There was the one that started in 1999 under Clinton. There was the one that started in 1991 under Bush Sr. The one I remember the most was the first one, because that was the first time I remember hearing anyone say that we had something to worry about.
I am sure there have been numerous recessions over the previous decades as all a recession is is a decrease in the economy. What was always a worry was a depression, but recessions came and went, and nobody ever had a problem with them. People are going to lose jobs, companies are going to realign or close, and foreign trade is going to go up and down regardless of whether our economy is growing or receding, and these numbers were largely meaningless. Do we really care if the unemployent rate "leaps", "jumps", or "drastically rises" one or two percent? So we go from 4% unemployment to 6%. So what... 94% of Americans are working, so it's far from the end of the world.
So, since the late 1990s, we've gone from having nothing to fear but depressions, to nothing to fear but depressions and recessions, to being told to fear depressions, recessions AND every market correction, Dow Jones dip, a pittance of an increase in unemployment, etc., and anything less than a piece of fantastic economic news is cause for all of us to take the express elevator to the roof so we can leap to our deaths.
How did we survive from the late 1930's to the late 1990's, with who knows how many recessions? I guess the difference between now and then was that our ancesters didn't have 24-hour financial networks with a need to fill airtime and drive up ratings by making political mountains out of economic mole hills.
My dad lived through the
January 22, 2008 - 13:40 ET by Gary P JacksonMy dad lived through the Great Depression. Picked cotton for 75 cents a day, and was glad to do it. Everyone got through it by being focused and hard as nails.
What we have so far is nothing remotely like the Great Depression. Although, I wonder what would happen if it happen in today's climate. I don't think it would be pretty.
It is disgusting how the press have been cheerleaders for a total collapse of the economy. Hope they tank first!
When he's not Grumpy...
January 22, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Hero SquadActually, he's become more of the Sleepy Dwarf of politics.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Whaddaya mean we?
January 22, 2008 - 11:55 ET by KC MulvilleRemember Reagan at the 1992 convention?
The liberals howled. How dare Reagan deny them equal place at the victory? Democrats deserved half the credit, they whined. Just remember that as Iraq stabilizes and things look up. Matthews: "Republicans already have an unpopular war ... " Thanks, Democrats ... we can count on you ... to be there when things are going well, and to be absent when things get difficult. At least they're predictable.
Michael Jordan?
January 22, 2008 - 12:05 ET by FlashmanMore like the Pee-wee Herman of Politics. In fact you could say it was the Pee-wee Presidency.
So What Does That Make Hillary?
January 22, 2008 - 13:23 ET by V the KIf Bill is Michael Jordan, Hillary is like the kid who placed last in the Special Olympics.
I see the connection...two
January 22, 2008 - 13:39 ET by fitzfongI see the connection...two overrated, cheating ball hogs who managed to create the impression (with highly favorable media treatment) that they were better than they were. Both played in an era (the 1990s) when there were few competitive threats. Both were preceeded by superior leaders (Bird & Magic/Reagan) who faced far tougher challenges and managed to usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity...for which the beneficiaries took all the credit. Both cheated on their wives, both let the world know what kind of underwear they wore. Both had to create their own traumas to make it look like they overcame long odds. Jordan had Ahmad Rashad, Clinton had Nina Burleigh. And both had suspicious deaths around them. Yeah, I see the connection.
The left in this country in
January 22, 2008 - 13:48 ET by bigtimerThe left in this country in the msm in all venues have been panting, urging, praying, begging breathlessly that this country goes into a deep recession...they have an agenda to regain their so-called rightful power with this they think....
Is this pathetic or what...the party that is supposed to care deeply about the working man....you show your true colors...
....anything at any price to anybody to win....
Priceless
A backhanded complement?
January 22, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Parker1227Sounds to me like Stengel is spinning this "complement" to raise fears about a vague and unsettling Clinton co-presidency. This goes along with Obama's recent insinuation that it is unclear who is (or would be) in charge of a Clinton white-house.
Given Bill's recent free-lance campaigning (like a poorly trained pit bull), more than a few people on both sides of the aisle are feeling queasy about small things like the constitutionality of Bill slipping into 8 more years of presidency.