Good Lord. And Obama doesn't have a right to be angry too? Do the words "kitchen sink" ring a bell? You don't hear Obama running around demanding that everyone make nice with him after everything he was put through. He's still having to deal with the damage Hillary caused during the primaries - Rev. Wright, Ayers, elite-gate, biter-gate, and more. So give me a freaking break and grow the frak up, people. We have bigger fish to fry than your egos.
Putting aside the fact that "the state of Iowa" is now on their enemies list (seriously), there's something the Clintons are forgetting. Being a former president is nice and all, but being a current president is nicer. Yes, so they're now never again going to give a job recommendation to anyone who supported Obama. Okay, then those folks can now go to President Obama instead of former President Clinton. It's all just so petty and childish. Not everyone who didn't support you is the enemy. Not to mention, that "you're with us or you're against us" stuff didn't serve you too well during the primary, so why are you sticking with it now? Yes, the Republicans launched a witch hunt (well, multiple witch hunts) against the Clintons. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with them, who supported Obama, has the same motivation at heart as Richard Mellon Scaife, the guy who funded the entire inquisition about the Clintons in the 90s. Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, Hillary likes Mellon Scaife now. It's all so confusing. More from the NYT:
As the Obama bandwagon has swelled, so have the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of “ingrate,” “traitor” or “enemy,” according to the associates and campaign officials, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.
Philippe Reines, a spokesman for both Clintons, said neither kept any specific catalog of those believed to have wronged them. “There is no list,” Mr. Reines said.
The lists maintained by supporters tend to be less formal documents than spoken diatribes, with offenders’ names spat forth in rants, gripe sessions and post-mortems.
Several names and entities are common among various list makers. The lineup invariably begins with A-list members like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip; Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Clinton’s lawyer in his impeachment and trial; David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and several Kennedys. Some members of the Democratic Party’s rules committee, the state of Iowa and the caucus system in general are also near the top.
The news media have already focused on some list entries, including the online gossip purveyor Matt Drudge (who had the nerve to show up at Mrs. Clinton’s departure speech on Saturday), Todd S. Purdum of Vanity Fair (the author of a recent profile of Mr. Clinton) and the cable network MSNBC (whose hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are charter list members, Clinton associates said)....
These are people who should know better than to ask the former president or first lady for a job recommendation for a son-in-law....
While Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her, Mr. Clinton, who reportedly has an encyclopedic memory of all the people he has helped, employed or appointed over the years, apparently has a far longer one, the campaign officials said.
But close advisers to Sen. Obama signaled an Obama-Clinton ticket was highly unlikely. People in both camps cited what several called "a deal-breaker" -- Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library.
Bumped: I originally wrote this post on May 22, but it's worth taking another look in light of all the rumors that Hillary "would be open to the V.P. slot" according to CNN. Of course, Hillary's crew is pushing that rumor today. They just have to make this day about her, not the actual nominee. And, sure, Obama probably should put Hillary on his list for potential running mates. Then, let the vetting begin -- and the vetting is INTENSE. Just because Hillary's open to being V.P. sure doesn't mean she should get the job.
One thing to keep in mind, the Obama campaign has been drama-free. I think it's fair to say the opposite has not been true about the Clinton campaign. (Today's another great example of that.) Does Obama want that crew in the White House with him?
Two rumors circulated today. One is that Obama has begun the process of selecting a Vice President. The other, which seems to have gained steam through the day, is that Bill Clinton wants Hillary to be Obama's Vice President.
While I think Hillary as V.P. is a horrible idea, all the buzz got me wondering: could Hillary even survive the Vice Presidential vetting process? Some background, courtesy of Marc Ambinder, about Jim Johnson who is leading the search for Obama -- and the vetting process:
Johnson, a former CEO of Fannie Mae who is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank, also vetted vice presidential candidates for Walter Mondale, whose campaign he chaired. On the eve of the convention in 1984, Mr. Mondale was set to choose Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, only to find irreconcilable political problems with the business dealings of Ms. Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. Ironically, questions about Ferraro's husband, a real estate developer, would dog her throughout the general election campaign. Mr. Johnson said later that the experience if 1984 had taught him to start much earlier and vet much more thoroughly.
The vetting process entails a rigorous schedule of interviews focusing on everything from politics to potential embarrassments -- Did they ever employ a nanny on whose behalf they did not pay Social Security taxes, for example; did they experiment with drugs or people in college? -- and potential candidates are required to give the search team access to their tax returns and other financial records.
This sounds pretty rigorous -- and the potential V.P. nominees have to comply.
Hillary always claims she's fully vetted, but that's not true. And, the vetting process includes the spouse. Basically, this means Obama's vetting team would have access to all the Clinton's records -- all the stuff that hasn't become public. The Clintons would have to open up the library funders and foundation donors. They'd have to name everyone who has paid Bill Clinton to speak or do any other work. They'd investigate all of Bill's dealings with Ron Burkle, for example. And, for sure, they'd have to investigate a lot of other rumors that swirl about.
The Clintons can keep their own secrets when they run the show. But, this won't be their show. They won't have Howard Wolfson and his team stonewalling reporters who are asking prying questions.
If the Clintons want the V.P. job, they can't say no to any question asked. And, it's pretty clear that Jim Johnson knows what questions to ask. That seems like a risky proposition for the Clintons. Sure would be fun to be a fly on the wall during those interviews.
Ben Smith has the Clintons' entire 2,000 word memo in response to Vanity Fair's new profile of Bill Clinton. Before I get to finish the Vanity Fair piece, and start the Clinton memo, one thing struck me as odd. The Clintons are furious that Vanity Fair's writer is married to former Clinton spokesperson Dee Dee Myers. They seem to think that it's an irreconcilable conflict of interest having a reporter cover the Clintons when that reporter is married to a former Clinton staffer.
So what does that make it when the reporter himself is a former Clinton staffer, like ABC's George Stephanopoulos? Not a peep from the Clintons when they get interviewed by George. And in fact, Hillary did an hour-long campaign infomercial, I'm sorry I mean town meeting, with George just a few weeks ago.
Secondly, I would have thought the conflict of interest here, having Dee Dee as the wife of the reporter, would weigh to the Clintons' advantage - i.e., the reporter is biased in favor of the Clintons, like George. Or is there something really bad about the relationship between Dee Dee and the Clintons that they're not telling us?
As Joe always says, nothing but drama with these people.
Dowd channels Joe Sudbay in today's Times, with a mythical conversation between Obama and Bill Clinton regarding everything Bill would have to disclose in order for Hillary to be fully vetted as VP:
“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”
“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”
“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”
“Ha, ha.”
“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”
“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”
“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”
“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”
“Higher.”
“Oh, no. Not that.”
“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”
And don't forget that back in 1992, they had FAR more states that hadn't voted since the primaries started in March, as compared to January this year. Jed has a lot more quotes, but these are the best:
"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination." -- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)
"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee." -- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)
"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season." -- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)
"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'" -- NYT, 4/29/92
So when Bill Clinton said the other day that never has a candidate been treated so disrespectfully, he lied. Surprise.
Two rumors circulated today. One is that Obama has begun the process of selecting a Vice President. The other, which seems to have gained steam through the day, is that Bill Clinton wants Hillary to be Obama's Vice President.
While I think Hillary as V.P. is a horrible idea, all the buzz got me wondering: could Hillary even survive the Vice Presidential vetting process? Some background, courtesy of Marc Ambinder, about Jim Johnson who is leading the search for Obama -- and the vetting process:
Johnson, a former CEO of Fannie Mae who is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank, also vetted vice presidential candidates for Walter Mondale, whose campaign he chaired. On the eve of the convention in 1984, Mr. Mondale was set to choose Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, only to find irreconcilable political problems with the business dealings of Ms. Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. Ironically, questions about Ferraro's husband, a real estate developer, would dog her throughout the general election campaign. Mr. Johnson said later that the experience if 1984 had taught him to start much earlier and vet much more thoroughly.
The vetting process entails a rigorous schedule of interviews focusing on everything from politics to potential embarrassments -- Did they ever employ a nanny on whose behalf they did not pay Social Security taxes, for example; did they experiment with drugs or people in college? -- and potential candidates are required to give the search team access to their tax returns and other financial records.
This sounds pretty rigorous -- and the potential V.P. nominees have to comply.
Hillary always claims she's fully vetted, but that's not true. And, the vetting process includes the spouse.
Basically, this means Obama's vetting team would have access to all the Clinton's records -- all the stuff that hasn't become public. The Clintons would have to open up the library funders and foundation donors. They'd have to name everyone who has paid Bill Clinton to speak or do any other work. They'd investigate all of Bill's dealings with Ron Burkle, for example. And, for sure, they'd have to investigate a lot of other rumors that swirl about.
The Clintons can keep their own secrets when they run the show. But, this won't be their show. They won't have Howard Wolfson and his team stonewalling reporters who are asking prying questions.
If the Clintons want the V.P. job, they can't say no to any question asked. And, it's pretty clear that Jim Johnson knows what questions to ask. That seems like a risky proposition for the Clintons. Sure would be fun to be a fly on the wall during those interviews.
Yes, a man who got a blowjob from a 21 year old intern in the Oval Office while talking on the phone to world leaders, and whose subsequent lies turned it into a two-year scandal that destroyed our party's ability to get anything done, tells us that "we" mock the voters. He took our votes as license to turn the White House into his own personal Animal House, and he feels mocked? Now that's chutzpah. Bill Clinton is dead set on destroying Democratic nominee Barack Obama. It's high time the DNC and the Superdelegates told the Clintons to take their sorry, scandal-ridden asses and get the hell out. We are going to have another month of these vindictive racist losers destroying Obama's credibility with the very voters he is going to need in the fall to beat McCain. What possible benefit to the party is there in having Bill and Hillary keeping us all talking about what idiots they are, rather than focusing on John McCain?
I thought Harry Reid and Nancy Peolosi told us that the Clintons were going to stop going negative on Obama? I guess not. More from ABC:
Per ABC News' Sarah Amos, this is what the 42nd president of the United States said Friday in Ripley, W.Va.:
"Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her."
In Madison, W.Va.:
"It is very interesting, from the very beginning of this race there has been a sharp divide in the vote -- the people who need a president, who need to turn the economy around, who need to restore the middle class, who need to give poor people a chance to work their way into the middle class, who need to give our children a better future, who need to restore our standing in the world and the war in Iraq, but do it in a way that rebuilds our military and stands up for America's security and standing around the world -- they have been for her from the get-go."
And on and on... Ginning up the resentments and the class divide (and maybe other divisions). ... His message to these voters: Obama and the media are laughing at you and think you're stupid!!!
Do you regret referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President? —Justin Dews, Cambridge, Mass.
MORRISON: People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
"I've been tested. I've been vetted. I've been in the political arena in our country for 16 years. There are no surprises." - Hillary Clinton, 12/14/07
Here we go again.
Slate just published a piece about a new book about Bill Clinton, called "The Clinton Years." Slate reports that the book includes an "old rumor" about Bill Clinton continuing his philandering. While the Clinton campaign has done a good job of embarrassing the press, and the Obama campaign, away from mentioning these rumors, the Republicans won't be so reticent in the fall. To paraphrase Clinton surrogate Evan Bayh, this is the kind of thing that Swift Boats are made of.
This is the first time a lot of people are hearing about this particular rumor. (Though Joe and I knew about this particular rumor a good year ago. We also know far more details about the rumor than Slate has revealed. But Joe and I chose, until now, not to report on it because, well, we still find ourselves pulling punches for Hillary's scandals when nobody on her team pulls punches for Obama's.) Because this rumor is new for most people, for most of you, that means this rumor, this baggage, isn't "vetted," to use Hillary's vernacular. It's not good, and if it's true (hell, even if it isn't true), it could doom our chances against McCain in the fall were Hillary to be the nominee. Why? Because were Hillary to somehow become our party's nominee, the Republican 527s, and GOP state parties like Kentucky and North Carolina, would ensure that we spend the entire fall discussing who Bill Clinton is sleeping with, and whether we're going to have more Monicas when he's back in the White House, rather than discussing why John McCain is too old and too conservative to be president. Just imagine the jokes Republicans, and the late night shows, would make about Hillary and that 3am phone call now that this is out there.
Now, the Clinton campaign will say that it's just horrible that anyone would dare mention rumors about Bill Clinton continuing to philander, and how horrible it is that Slate (or I) would even write about the new book (but I suspect they wouldn't deny the rumor, for fear of inviting another "Monkey Business" a la Gary Hart). But you have to remember, Hillary was the one who said that dropping the "kitchen sink" on a fellow Democrat is totally acceptable.
Before the critical primaries in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her campaign had vowed to throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama to derail the momentum that had led to wins in 11 straight contests.
Hillary is the one who has said that personal scandals, and personal relationships, of fellow Democrats are fair game in this nomination battle. Hillary is the one who said that vetting these scandals now, rather than letting the Republicans vet them in the fall, is a necessity and is actually doing our party a favor, giving us a chance to see how well the potential nominee will fight back against such sleazy revelations. So, I publish this link to Slate in order to help Hillary become a better candidate, per her own request, per her own standards of conduct. So spare us the outrage from the Clinton campaign. They made their bed. Now, unfortunately, we're going to see who's sleeping in it.
Pages 103 and 104: Clinton and Ron Burkle, the supermarket magnate, have been buddies since 1992. Felsenthal repeats the old rumor that "Burkle and Clinton are … partners in philandering." She also quotes an unnamed source alleging that "Burkle and Clinton spend time together doing things that Hillary would not want made public" and reports that Burkle calls his private plane "Fuck Jet."
The president's relationship with Ron Burkle has been the subject of widespread speculation primarily concerning Bill Clinton's private life. Over a year ago, Patrick Healy wrote in the New York Times:
Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife. Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle, or hitting parties and fund-raisers in Manhattan.
Is it true? I have no idea. Has it been vetted? Not at all.
A lot of people, including too many Democratic party leaders, sat back and watched Hillary and Bill plot and carry out their plans to destroy Obama. The pundits and a lot of Democratic strategists oohed and aahed at how aggressive the Clinton campaign had become. We've all been warned not to underestimate them as the Clinton team contocted new rules and new negative ads. The Clintons have an enemies list. The Clintons hold a grudge. Oh, and the latest is the Bill himself is the campaign's "strategist-in-chief" and he's pushing the negative attacks, just like his predecessor, Mark Penn.
This whole drama -- and it is always, always drama with the Clintons -- has played out as if we're in some kind of Clinton vacuum. It's as if there were no political consequences beyond those relating to Bill and Hillary.
There are.
This week, the Clintons and the Democratic party learned that there will be serious political consequences for the Clintons' bad behavior.
Rep. James Clyburn laid out very clearly what is at stake. The interviews Clyburn has done with several majornews outlet should be sending shock waves through the Democratic hierarchy:
"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."
That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out.
Clyburn isn't bluffing.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) backed up Clyburn's warning according to the Huffington Post:
"Jim Clyburn is my very best friend in the U.S. Congress and he and I talk on and off the record every day of the week," said Butterfield, who predicted that the race in North Carolina would ultimately be decided by single-digits. "That said, I had not read his comments... But politics by its very nature is a competitive process and there have been times when Sen. Clinton has walked up to the line and there has been a time or two when she has stepped over the line in terms of her comments... Whether there is an irreparable breach, I don't think we are at the point right now where we are at an irreparable breach, but it is foreseeable and that is why I encourage civility."
The likes of Mark Halperin and Chris Matthews and VandeHei/Harris and CNN's hapless political crew have been trying to tell us what these election results mean, but it's not really for them to say. The punditry was in a frenzy after the PA primary, but as Taegan Goddard noted "the chances of a Clinton victory are actually lower than ever."
And, in typical fashion, the pundits have ignored -- or more accurately missed -- what's really going on. If Clinton steals this election or decides to destroy Obama, she and her husband and her campaign are laying the groundwork for the destruction of the Democratic party.
Eric Schmeltzer ran some numbers for Ohio in a diary at DailyKos. It's worth a read, but here's Eric' conclusion:
So any way you slice it, winning over enough of the white-male-working-class vote that Kerry could not get, to just squeak by in Ohio in 2008 is a pretty tall order. Doable, but tough. Add into that even a slight African American problem, and Hillary Clinton pretty much loses Ohio in 2008.
Conversely, assuming Barack Obama does just as "poorly" with white men as Kerry in 2004, as the Clinton team seems to be saying, he actually has an EASIER time winning Ohio, on account of the fact that he has no African American problem.
Why no one has examined this is beyond me.
As we've been learning this week, Hillary has more than a "slight" African American problem. She is precipitating a crisis that cannot be ignored.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has become delusional and destructive. For me, the moment she jumped the shark was her NPR interview claiming Michigan was a fair election. Yeah, it might have been in the Soviet Union or Iran, but in America, an election in violation of the rules with only one name should never count.
The pundits can continue to game out the different ways Hillary can steal the nomination. That's all fun and games for them. For the rest of us, this is too serious. The Democratic Party needs an intervention before Bill and Hillary march us off a cliff.
Back in the day, Bill Clinton thought if you played by the rules, you could get ahead:
"The main idea here is still the old idea of the American dream ... that if you work hard and play by the rules, you ought to have a decent life and a chance for your children to have a better one, " he said.
Leave it to Team Clinton to make playing by the rules an out-of-date concept. The new main idea behind his wife's campaign is that you change, ignore or break the rules when you're losing and screw over the candidate who has played by the rules. (Then, you do the easy part of convincing the gullible pundits that the rules didn't really matter.)
