Most of the good parts of “My Life,” Bill Clinton’s 957-page memoir, have already come out in the last week or two. But that hasn’t stopped Time from putting the ex-president on its cover this week, running a catch-all by Joe Klein, an “exclusive” interview with Bubba, and short book excerpt (subscription required for all). Among other nuggets of news, Clinton takes the chance to clarify his comment in an interview with CBS’s Dan Rather that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky “just because I could.” What he meant, he says, is that, “Being a moral person [means] the one thing you don’t do is do things just because you can. But if you think about most of the mistakes that we all make in our lives … well, there was temptation and opportunity.”
Nor can Newsweek resist the opportunity (or temptation) to cover Clinton, weighing in with its own review. The magazine (which inexplicably features “Spider Man 2” on its cover) finds little to say that’s new, but gives it a shot, in part by making the bizarre allegation that, “Clinton doesn’t directly blame unresolved feelings about his troubled childhood for his marital infidelities and other lapses, but he comes pretty close.” Trying to explain your behavior as an adult by examining your childhood experiences? Now that’s loopy.
In non-Clinton (and non-Reagan) news, The New Republic joins the media hand-wringing over its performance during the lead-up to the Iraq war, with a cover that asks, “Were We Wrong?” Given that the lead editorial admits that the magazine’s main reason for supporting the war — that Saddam had WMD — “now appears to be wrong,” however, it’s hard to know why that’s phrased as a question.
The Washington Monthly features a provocative piece by editor-in-chief Paul Glastris. Channeling Campaign Desk, the Monthly accuses the mainstream press of being so concerned with avoiding accusations of “bias” that it refuses to call one side out, even when it should. Writes Glastris:
It is a cliche to observe that the parties have drawn further apart, the center no longer holds, and partisans on both sides have withdrawn further into mutual loathing and ever more-homogenous and antagonistic groupings. Where the analysis goes wrong is in its assumption, either explicit or implicit, that both parties bear equal responsibility for this state of affairs … [T]he truth is that the growing polarization of American politics results primarily from the growing radicalism of the Republican Party.
And the Weekly Standard highlights a plan to change the formula by which Colorado awards its votes in the Electoral College (subscription required). A November ballot initiative backed by Democrats would, if successful, replace the current “winner-takes-all” system with a method that would instead award electors proportionally, according to the results of the popular vote — effective immediately. Had such a system been in place in Colorado in 2000, Al Gore would now be president.
Democrats defend the idea on principle: “What we are proposing to do,” says one of the initiative’s organizers, “… is to come much closer to one man one vote.” The Standard disagrees: “[W]e can’t help wondering why the sponsors and financiers of ‘Make Your Vote for President Count’ aren’t similarly active in, say, California and New York, where in 2000 such a plan would have transferred a whopping 36 electoral votes from Gore to Bush.” We have to admit that our Spidey sense is tingling on this one, as well.
–Zachary Roth
Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.