Update 6/5/04 – No, nobody got a clip, and, seemingly, nobody cares.
I also heard Clinton say a couple days ago during some publicity for his book that he “liked” daddy Shrub. So it could have all been in fun anyway.
Hey did anybody grab the clip of Clinton getting pushed by daddy shrub at the WWII Memorial last weekend? This is all I heard about it.
Thanks!!
lisa

Bush I pushes Clinton
by kos
Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT
Hmmm, I wasn’t watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43’s face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don’t know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I’m not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened…

Here is the complete thread of:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/29/162231/064
Bush I pushes Clinton
by kos
Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT
Hmmm, I wasn’t watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43’s face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don’t know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I’m not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened…
Misc ::
Display:
Bush I pushes Clinton | 190 comments (190 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
That was crazy (none / 1)
I saw that as well. I wonder what that was all about.
by BryanRI on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:26:42 EDT
description (none / 1)
Can someone who saw it describe it in more detail? Did Bush I look angry? What was Clinton’s expression when he wagged his finger? I hope someone tells us what he was saying. Maybe the mic was on.
Don’t understand NY politics? Try The Nor’Easter
by jd in nyc on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:09 EDT
[ Parent ]
I saw it (none / 0)
before it happened I was gawking at Clinton there chatting with W, didn’t notice Bush I at first because his back was toward the camera a bit. Then they were laughing a bit about something, and Bush I shoved Clinton like you might shove a brother making a good natured joke about you. However, the little group broke up at that moment with W walking off in that “opportunity” sort of way one dodges out of a conversation at a party.
– pyrrho
by pyrrho on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:05:08 EDT
[ Parent ]
I think we’re reaching a bit here (3.50 / 2)
I saw it also. I thought it looked like good natured banter between members of the Club of Presidents. Bush I has always appeared a bit awkward. I think he probably made a playful physical guy contact, but with a bit more force than he intended. End of story.
by rusrivman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:12 EDT
[ Parent ]
If Clinton wagged (none / 0)
his fucking finger in my face, I’d shove him, too. Both are very belligerant body language. But I wonder what Jr said to provoke Billy’s finger wagging.
George’s classmates on his performance at Harvard, “…completely out of his depth.” (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven’t helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:59 EDT
[ Parent ]
If I were standing face to face (4.00 / 2)
with Dubya, I’d wag more than my finger in his face. Good for Clinton! I hope he was threatening Dubya, something along the lines of, “I’ve got more CIA pull than you do as president, and when I’m through making phone calls you won’t even have time to clean up the empty beer cans before you leave the WH!” After which, Poppy said, “yeah, we’ll see who’s got more CIA pull, asshole,” and he pushed Clinton.
“And Orwell’s hell, a terror era coming through. But this little brother’s watching you too” -Zack de la Rocha, Voice Of The Voiceless
by Subterranean on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:55:35 EDT
[ Parent ]
I’ll put my money… (3.50 / 2)
on the Clenis. Can we get the Bush twins to hold the “Round x” signs?
by Roastbeef on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:37 EDT
Hmmm (3.50 / 2)
Maybe you have the players wrong. Knowing Bill, he might have “gone a round” with the Bush twins, and Grandpappy found out. 😉
by ElitistJohn on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:00:26 EDT
[ Parent ]
ROFL! (none / 0)
Were there any threesomes?
by davybaby3 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:38:15 EDT
[ Parent ]
I wonder if we’ll ever know … (none / 1)
or if we’ll ever see the picture shown again on the news …
If we do, I bet Olberman will be the one to show it …
The world is on its elbows and knees, It’s forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:53 EDT
or… (none / 1)
or Jon Stewart
by runchadrun on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:28:58 EDT
[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)
I was thinking ‘news’ … but since Stewart tells it like it is better than the ‘not-fake’ news programs …
The world is on its elbows and knees, It’s forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:11 EDT
[ Parent ]
Daily Show (none / 0)
Anyone know when they’re coming back? This is a HORRIBLE time to be in reruns.
Maryscott O’Connor — Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.
by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:09:49 EDT
[ Parent ]
Probably Monday or Tuesday (none / 0)
I can’t remember them ever being gone for more than two weeks, except maybe after September 11, and that’s how long it’s been. Memorial Day may push it to Tuesday, but I doubt it’ll be much longer.
It better not, anyway. I’m going through withdrawal pains over here.
It’s not that I disagree with Bush’s economic policy or his foreign policy, it’s that I believed he was a child of Satan sent to destroy the planet Earth. -BH
by Ben Grimm on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:34:38 EDT
[ Parent ]
This is normal… (none / 0)
…they took a break this long at the same time last year. Look for them to be back Tuesday.
Do not adjust your mind, it’s reality that is malfunctioning.
by Alumbrados on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:34:43 EDT
[ Parent ]
Faithful Tivo says… (none / 0)
June 1. Just started watching the reruns again and nearly fell off my couch when McCain came out and started looking under the cushions for that chart that Rummy forgot.
by sujal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:37 EDT
[ Parent ]
Ot, but most relevant (3.00 / 4)
In honor of this holiday I share with you Sir Karl Popper :
A few reasons why Karl Popper is obscure and unknown while the totalitarian philosophers he debunked (Karl Marx, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, etc) are still widely known with easily available literature is that the people who would use us, much like hitler used the masses. is because we want to trust our leaders, however time and time again we are disillusioned.
“Most of all, those early Americans understood that liberty is fragile. To give any distant body of elites the power to tax and spend to stay in power promises corruption and a Leviathan government more interested in concentrating power for itself than in protecting the rights of its citizens.”
Plato asks: “who should rule?”
Popper asks: “how can we minimize the damage a ruler can do?”
“Bertrand Russell described this study, with its companion volume on Plato, as ‘ a work of first-class importance which ought to be widely read for its masterly criticism of the enemies of democracy, ancient and modern. His (Popper’s) attack on Plato, while unorthodox, is in my opinion thoroughly justified. His analysis of Hegel is deadly. Marx is dissected with equal acumen, and given his due share of responsibility for modern misfortunes. The book is a vigorous and profound defence of democracy, timely, very interesting, and very well written.”
“The vital question is not ‘Who should rule?’ but ‘How can we minimize misrule?”
-Sir Karl Popper “The Open Society and Its Enemies”
Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:35 EDT
Popper (none / 0)
He surely should be added to the wiki.
by filchyboy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:36:58 EDT
[ Parent ]
Popper Debunked Aristotle? (none / 0)
Where does Popper debunk Aristotle? I don’t remember him doing this anywhere. If it’s in “The Open Society” — and I do not recall any attack on Aristotle in that work — I’m not sure any attack on the perfectly sane political views of Aristotle could amount to a debunking.
by lysias on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:02:45 EDT
[ Parent ]
I think Popper’s allergy… (none / 0)
…to historicism (as he uses the term) caused him to bristle at the mechanistic cycle from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy back to monarchy that can be got out of the Politics.
The necessity and inevitabilty of it would strike him as dangerous, and an entry point for totalitarianism.
He does go upside Plato’s head, big time.
And as for what he did to Hegel — when Sir Karl was done, you coulda sent what was left of the old Prussian fraud home in a manila envelope.
Patria est ubicumque bene. “Their ‘Homeland’ is wherever they can turn a buck.” Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.
by Otis Noman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:34 EDT
[ Parent ]
aristotle (none / 0)
NFNB aristotle definitely errs on the side of the programmatic in his Poetics, too. Worthy of critique, though perhaps not in this forum.
…the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:30:35 EDT
[ Parent ]
Soros is a big admirer of Popper (4.00 / 2)
In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros has quite a bit to say about Popper and his ideas. Apparently Popper is for him the pre-eminent 20th century philosopher.
Simuilarly, an obscure right-wing pholospher named Leo Strauss apparently inspired the neocons. See this month’s Harpers. Both sides have their “modern” philosophers for intellectual propping-up.
Popper is as sound as Strauss is suspect. For a philospher, Popper is remarkably humble and pragmatic. He doesn’t get taken in by messianic ideas, and his intentions are simple and noble. He is also very readable. Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he’s actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.
I think that’s a basic distinction between liberal vs. reactionary behavior — the willingness, or lack thereof, to come clean and say what you mean, openly — and be judged by it. Do your ideas, clearly and brashly stated, stink? It should be a test every news pundit has to pass.
“The universe is a sphere whose center is wherever there is intelligence.” -Thoreau
by samizdat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:16:35 EDT
[ Parent ]
as much as like Soros (none / 1)
I’d much rather Deleuze be the philosophical base of the next left. We’ll I suppose their is room for more then 2…
American Dynamics || from the land of the free, politics by design
by Abe on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:04:46 EDT
[ Parent ]
wicked! (none / 1)
The terrorists are already deterritorialized, so we had better step up.
The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:28:49 EDT
[ Parent ]
Frightening stuff (none / 0)
20 years ago I read a critique of liberal arts departments by John Sawhill. His thesis was that in 1953 liberal arts departments and colleges (the source of rigorous and creative thinking)began the gutting of their first rate minds in an rush for corporate money in applied science departments.
Last night I was doing a survey of Straussian teachers throughout academia and found that much of the vacuum in those departments has been filled (I suspect, intentionally) by the Staussian movement. Those of us who are concerned about the education of our best young liberal minds need to attend to this and start to push for a new strain of genuinely rigorous intellectual persuit. On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians. The direction of their thinking and teaching is another matter entirely, and something to be very concerned about.
by tikkun on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:13:10 EDT
[ Parent ]
Come again? (none / 0)
On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians.
Actually, the merits of the Straussians can most certainly be questioned, and it frequently is criticized, at least in some (and hopefully most) quarters of the humanities.
“You can’t talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria.” –Ezra Pound
by machopicasso on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:56:29 EDT
[ Parent ]
cf, “Wittgenstein’s Poker” (none / 0)
Popper sets up two-dimensional “straw” philosophers throughout the history of philosophy, and knocks them over with a one-dimensional argument. He shuddah stuck with falsification theory and science.
by Mekiah on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]
Popper’s Not The Best (none / 1)
Popper’s an interesting case, but far from the best that modern philosophy can offer. He & his students did a real hatchet job on Thomas Kuhn, after The Structure of Scientific Revolutions came out, and they pretty pretty much knocked the wind out of his sails. So, while the idea of a paradigm shift went on to become one of the major memes of our time, the hard work of making his insight rigorous and useful has never really been done.
What makes Popper really culpable here is that he claimed to be a defender of science, and a severe critic of the Platonic idealist strain in philosophy. But when Kuhn came along with a scientific approach to understanding how science works (history of science as an empirical study), Popper and his circle lambasted him, saying that science couldn’t possibly work that way–arguing from how they thought it had to work. They really took a fundamentalist-style approach to defending science, rather than using science self-critically to understand science.
What really ticked them off, for example, was the idea that not just history, but sociology (horror of horrors) might have something significant to say about how science works. How dare a still-underdeveloped “soft” science presume to tell us something about how a crowning “hard” science like physics is or should be done? Better by far to simply rely on their armchair speculations.
In short, Popper’s much better within the narrow bounds of Big-P philosophy than he is in integrating it into the rest of the world.
A far better approach (to politics as well as philosophy of science), IMHO, derives from William James, whose work in psychology and philosophy influenced each other profoundly. He is much more consistent than Popper in opposing totalitarian tendencies. This includes being much less cartoon-like in characterizing those he disagrees with.
Let’s put the information back in the information age.
by Paul Rosenberg on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:53 EDT
[ Parent ]
Kuhn is not a scientist (none / 1)
He is a historian of science and a sociologist. And much of his Structure of Scientific Revolutions just passed Sir Karl Popper by, which is unfortunate because I believe Popper is, after Wittgenstein, the most important of 20th century philosophers.
Kuhn was describing science as it happens at the average graduate school or industrial lab. For the most part in those places you are not acting in the classical inductive model – gathering evidence and then drawing conclusions. Instead you are working through an assigned problem governed by the conventional assumptions of your field. In Kuhn’s terms, now sadly debased, you are working within a paradigm, solving problems in that paradigm’s own terms. Results that don’t fit are generally dismissed as failures of technique, it is not your job to push back at the frontiers of science, it is your job to find a more efficient catalyst to do something or other.
In Popper’s world every scientist is Einstein. In reality there have been tens of thousands of MS theses that were the result of some Professor assigning some hapless Grad Student to study the effects of adding C to B as compared to the old method of adding A to B. Most science is cookbook science, and only rarely, and by rare people, does the recipe book get torn up and re-written. Resulting in the consequent Paradigm Shift.
There are reference books that actually track how many references to a particular book or article are made in peer reviewed journals. Back when I was running the BAKER Document Delivery Service at UC Berkeley (about 87-90) Kuhn was the number one cited source in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index), but I suspected then and I suspect now that most of those people actually never read the book but instead lifted the incredibly cool term “paradigm shift” and cited Kuhn as cover.
But enough rambling. Read Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” (and note it does not attack Aristotle openly) and Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. They are among the most important books of the 20th century.
by Bruce Webb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:53:21 EDT
[ Parent ]
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (3.00 / 2)
Now that’s what I’m talking about! That’s an image I want to see. Daddy physically protecting Junior! Prove’s whose the man. I’d bet GW was praying for God to smite Clenis just after that.
Link Anyone?
$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they’re worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:35:03 EDT
Staged? (none / 1)
Is this some attempt by Poppy and Poopy to cause some kind of mini-Wellstone memorial to make the Democrats look bad?
by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:37:00 EDT
Who looks bad? (none / 0)
How come you think Clinton looks bad when Bush 41 loses his temper and pushes him?
Maybe daddy was taking credit for building the memorial that Clinton approved?
“I don’t do quagmires, and my boss doesn’t do nuance.”
by SteinL on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:41:46 EDT
[ Parent ]
Media will make Bushies look good. (none / 0)
by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:07 EDT
[ Parent ]
No f’n way they can, (none / 0)
a single-handed shove is jesting. Two-handed is a challenge, and a threat. This is Poppy losing it.
“Never mind the trick, what the hell’s the point?” Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:53 EDT
[ Parent ]
Ummm (none / 0)
The “liberal” media will find a way.
by jfern on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:22:16 EDT
[ Parent ]
Wouldn’t surprise me if… (3.66 / 6)
Clinton said something like “you’re gonna get beat worse than your Daddy did” to George WPE.
How do you define security?
by PSoTD on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:42:33 EDT
We’ve got to get a copy of this! (none / 1)
Someone must have a recording of this thing on TIVO or something. I’m dying to see it!
Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:43:25 EDT
C-SPAN will re-air (none / 0)
the dedication ceremony circa 8 o’clock p.m. Eastern time, according to its schedule.
— Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:19 EDT
[ Parent ]
Republican? (none / 0)
Again with that sig! You do know there’s a Democrat running against Musgrave, don’t you? Or is this some subtle form of trolling I’m not familiar with?
http://www.stan2004.com/