This is pretty significant. I agree with Clinton about the response to Katrina and the funding of the aftermath, but is this going over the line?
The Moderate Voice has this to say:
Indeed, this may be yet one more indication that Bush is in serious trouble, now that Clinton, more diplomat than adversary through Bush’s first 4+ years (last year’s election campaign notwithstanding), has emerged as one of his more forceful and credible critics.
And furthermore, from the NY Times:
Mr. Clinton’s comments in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week” could prove awkward for the White House, given President Bush’s eagerness to involve his Democratic predecessor in a high-profile role to raise money for the hurricane’s victims. His remarks came days after the president gave a televised speech from New Orleans, trying to seize the momentum amid other attacks on the administration’s performance.
The White House has been under siege from critics, assailed first for the effectiveness of its response to the storm, and challenged more recently by questions about the long-term fiscal implications of its plans for rebuilding in the Gulf states.
Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines.
Honestly, this is a bit “Jimmy Carter”, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The same thoughts are on the minds of many, and Clinton spoke for a lot of us.
More about the response from Clinton.
Noting statistics that showed a significant drop in poverty during his presidency, Mr. Clinton said, “You can’t have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up, and when you tell people to go do something they don’t have the means to do, you’re going to leave the poor out.”
Again, is this taking advantage of the situation or does Clinton have valid points? You know where I stand, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.