|
|
| Voja |
BILL CLINTON IS MICK JAGGER (AND VICE VERSA)
The question now is: Which man will be remembered more fondly?
Notes by Jim DeRogatis
As symbols of their generation, they are two sides of the same coin, and not just in the realm of superficial similarities a la those old Lincoln/Kennedy pennies -- though there is a fair amount of that, so we ought to deal with it first.
William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946) and Michael Philip Jagger (born July 26, 1943) were both the apples of their mamas' eyes, if we accept the portraits offered by David Maraniss in First In His Class and Christopher Andersen in Jagger Unauthorized.
Both were eldest sons; both grew up off the beaten path in unremarkable burgs (Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Dartford, England); and both were extraordinarily driven from a very young age -- Clinton for political popularity, Jagger for fortune and fame -- in large part to please mommy dearest and show up the loser dad (for Clinton an alcoholic stepfather, for Jagger a stern gym teacher pop). Of course, both also acquired spouses who allowed them their extracurricular dalliances.
Their biographers began thinking their subjects were men of great complexity, but they concluded they were portraying figures who simply changed with alarming frequency for the sake of expediency. Near the end of his book Maraniss describes Clinton gliding from a poor black barbecue joint to an exclusive white country club to a meeting of rural deer hunters, all in the space of a few hours.
"If Clinton had the ability to move easily through so many different worlds, he could also appear a chameleon, forced to balance one world off against another," Maraniss writes. "Capable as he was of great bursts of energy and concentration, no single world could keep him content for long."
Keith Richards says something similar but much more poetic at the start of Andersen's tome. "Mick?" Richards croaks. "He's a lovely bunch of guys."
Both men became icons of the Baby Boom generation though Jagger made the pantheon a heck of a lot sooner than Clinton. The future president was just graduating high school when Jagger was storming the American pop charts with "Satisfaction." Jagger hit the biggest crisis of his career first, too, near the small town of Livermore, California, in December 1969. Determined not to be upstaged by Woodstock, the Stones decided to play a free concert of their own. They pulled out of the original site at the last minute when the owners there demanded an additional $125,000 that the ever-greedy Jagger wasn't willing to pay. Instead he performed at a place called Altamont.
You saw the movie; you know what happened next. There's a cute little scene in Jagger Unauthorized where the singer is watching film of the killing of black teenager Meredith Hunter by the Hell's Angels at Altamont. Writes Andersen: "'Wow,' Jagger said, enthralled. 'It's so horrible.' Moments later he was off to join (groupie) Miss Pamela."
Jagger never accepted any responsibility for the violence at the concert, which was attributable in large part to poor planning by the band and the decision to use the Hell's Angels for security. Instead he made that dark day part of his legend. That showed him to be a shallow, manipulative, self-obsessed jerk, but, man, he was still a heck of a singer and songwriter -- at least up until 1978's Some Girls.
The Stones' last great album is now 21 years old. Since then they've shamelessly peddled half-assed product, shilling it on half-hearted tours hyped by big corporations happy to underwrite Jagger's shucking and jiving because he believes as they do that rock 'n' roll is nothing more than an effective way to sell jeans and cologne.
The base ticket price here in Chicago is three hundred bucks. Anybody wanna venture that the Stones care about their audience any more now than they did in 1969?
Clinton's Altamont came 28 years after Jagger's, and it was kind of boring in comparison. There was no death, only sex, and Clinton refused to even call it that. He accepted responsibility, but he botched it, making his mea culpa way too late, and following it with one of the most disgusting displays of public self-flagellation since the middle ages.
A forceful statement in the first two weeks of the scandal -- something along the lines of: "I do not deny these charges, but I have broken no law, and my private life should be of no concern to the American public" -- might have saved his flabby ass, but he didn't have it in him. It wasn't the chameleon's nature. Instead Clinton weighed every side and read every poll while the parasites of our dying democracy erected the gallows where he's about to hang.
What's most pathetic about both of these geeks is that they didn't know when to quit. Privileged children of their golden era never do -- not because they're reluctant to abandon the utopian ideals of popular mythology (peace, love, etc.), but because they're so used to being the center of the universe that they can never see things from anyone else's asteroid.
Which man actually accomplished more? Whom will history recall more fondly? At least Jagger had a hand in producing Exile On Main Street. In the end Clinton will be remembered simply for being one.
Jim DeRogatis is the author of "Kaleidoscope Eyes: Psychedelic Rock from the '60s to the '90s." He is currently working on "Let It Blurt," a biography of the late Lester Bangs to be published by Anchor/Doubleday in 1999.
|
|
|
| winter |
this is does not even deserve the time and attention it took me to write this post!
wintah |
|
|
| jb |
Clinton and Jagger ...simply the best.... |
|
|
| David |
Well, one is a rock star and the other was PotUS. Bangin' lots of babes in good for one occupation. Not so good for the other.
Thanks and have a nice day. |
|
|
| jb |
David, you should post more often. |
|
|
| JaggaRichards |
Jagger gets the hot babes; Clinton always gets the pigs.
|
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]