A Side of Dish from Election 2008
09 January 2010 6:02 pm by Taylor Marsh
updated below
Jackie Collins, eat your heart out.
The teases from John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s new book, ‘Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime’, are deliciously salacious. Check out New York Magazine, whose excerpt on John and Elizabeth Edwards is a reputation killer for all time, for both of them. A more benign section:
The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs. But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton. – An Excerpt From John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s ‘Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime’ — New York Magazine
One “revelation” from the book, written about today by Marc Ambinder, got an immediate apology from Harry Reid, who is having some really bad days right now. But Reid has a wide, very deep infrastructure inside Nevada. It’s not over yet, though it’s by no means inconceivable that he could lose. (I just hope he doesn’t take down his son, Rory Reid, who is a cut above.)
Dishing on 2008, of course, requires some Clinton news, which is provided in Ambinder’s piece:
The war room within a war room dismissed or discredited much of the gossip floating around, but not all of it. The stories about one woman were more concrete, and after some discreet fact-finding, the group concluded that they were true: that BIll was indeed having an affair — and not a frivolous one-night stand but a sustained romantic relationship. …. For months, thereafter, the war room within a war room braced for the explosion, which her aides knew could come at any moment.
This was whispered about. Not just that WJC was fooling around, but that he had a relationship outside his marriage, and now someone found enough details to actually write it and make it interesting. As an aside, there were also tales of investigative journalists being sent to Las Vegas to investigate, uncover and get someone on the record, preferably one of the women, about what was allegedly going on there, too, with WJC. There was plenty of noise out there about Bill Clinton’s antics during the primaries, with people just waiting for it to bust out. If somebody had gone on the record it would have.
We are intimately familiar with the male political icons who stray, especially John F. Kennedy, who made being a louse sort of chic. He couldn’t have survived today’s media, because they won’t hide the dirt, nor should we.
Women caught in the political meat grinder, wives, and mistresses who find out or who are found out, even who bust out on their own with the story, are something we didn’t have to deal with much, the most famous in modern time being Jennifer Flowers… then Monica Lewinski… wannabe Paul Jones… now Reille Hunter.
It’s hard to say how the hangers on fans of Elizabeth Edwards will take the latest dish about this most protected of Democratic darlings. When I wrote candidly about Mrs. Edwards last year her fans went berserk. From the New York Magazine piece:
One day, she was on a conference call with the staffers of One America, the political-action committee that was being turned into a vehicle for John’s 2008 bid. There were 40 or 50 people on the line, mostly kids in their twenties being paid next to nothing (and in some cases literally nothing). Elizabeth had been cranky throughout the call, but at the end she asked if her and her husband’s personal health-care coverage had been arranged. Not yet, she was told. There are complications; let’s discuss it after the call. Elizabeth was having none of that. She flew into a rage.
If this isn’t dealt with by tomorrow, everyone’s health care at the PAC will be cut off until it’s fixed, she barked. I don’t care if nobody has health care until John and I do! – New York Magazine
That’s not the worst one either.
When it comes to seeing portrayals of Elizabeth Edwards like this, along with yet more salacious tidbits about Hillary’s latest ordeal with her husband, it causes uneasiness. In this day and age, smart, capable, but especially, financially comfortable women shouldn’t find themselves in these situations. They have a choice. Whether it’s being caught in the eye of a love child story that reveals a dying wife gripping her man and his fame long after he’s humiliated her, or the never ending, decade after decade serial philandering husband that you continue to protect, for your own sake you rationalize, but which is actually to your own detriment, these two stories defy rational analysis. Hey, but love isn’t rational, it’s emotional.
It makes you ask whether even Elizabeth and Hillary, as powerful and educated as two females can be, still feel self-defined by the famous, handsome, charismatic man they each married, unable to let go of the image of the man they first met, as well as the young woman they were, because their own identity and sexuality are so intertwined and fixed with his that their sense of self disappears without him. Sounds crazy, I know. Neither of these two strong women give an impression of being so emotionally dependent, but it’s clear they won’t let go. It’s tragically pathetic that marriage and love are wrapped so tightly in such packages of betrayal and co-dependency, which both wives accept and enable, even as they’re the only ones holding their marriage together. For what reason? Love?
John Heilemann and Mark Halperin have created quite the buzz. Who won’t read this book?
UPDATE: From Ambinder, some more damaging details on the Clintons that are really tough to take. But to Hillary Clinton’s reaction to Shaheen’s remarks, of course she’s right it would have been fair game in other elections. But this remark, as reported, illustrates that Hillary just didn’t get the nature of the race she was in and the mood of people. Penn’s remarks illustrate the same tone deafness to the time, but also how ill served Clinton was; but then again, that’s her fault, as she could have fired them at any time. As for the alleged remarks from WJC to Ted Kennedy below, it was certain that whatever former Pres. Clinton said had broken a tie with his former friend, as it was reported at the time. It had to have been very serious to get such a reaction from Kennedy. The one reported in the new book would have done it, if he indeed said it, though former Pres. Clinton obviously has no intention of commenting. This stuff is ugly, no other way to cut it.
Why Sen. Kennedy was offended about his conversation with Bill Clinton: (Page 218):
“Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Clinton senior strategist Mark Penn boasted to his staff how many times he managed to say “cocaine” on that famous Hardball segment. (Page 163.)
Hillary Clinton was initially pleased when her New Hampshire campaign chairman, Billy Shaheen, mentioned Obama’s previous use of drugs: (Page 161):
“Hillary’s reaction to Shaheen’s remarks was, “Good for him!” Followed by “Let’s push it out.” Her aides violently disagreed, seeing what Shaheen had said as a PR disaster. Grudgingly, Clinton acquiesced to disowning Shaheen’s comments. But she wasn’t going to cut him loose. Why should Billy have to fall on his sword for invoking something that had been fair game in every recent election?”
“It’s tragically pathetic that marriage and love are wrapped so tightly in such packages of betrayal and co-dependency, which both wives accept and enable, even as they’re the only ones holding their marriage together. For what reason? Love?”
Unless a politition has made FAMily valUUUUUes an issue they have used agaunst politicol opponents or have crusaded for campaign money on I don’t honestly see where it’s anyones buisness what goes on inside someone ELSES marraige.
That’s how I feel PERSONALY. I realize in this schytso country swinging back and forth between the BIBLE and Hustler Magazine that just ain’t gonna happen. Much the worse for US the electorate.
Taylor, I follow Secretary Clinton’s travels and she seems to be having a ball sans Bill’s presence. How sweet it is!
Well, fame and fortune do funny things to people. We just can’t assume the rich and famous are who they are marketed to be. Right? That’s a good lesson to learn. The Edwards story is very sad and thank goodness he is not our president. As for WJC – I don’t know what to say. I can see why Obama wouldn’t have wanted Hillary for VP because that would have been too close to scandal. (I have read that he was interested in her being VP but his aides nixed the idea, maybe rightly so.) Also looks like Hillary kind of got a raw deal all the way around from the Democratic establishment who misjudged her to Edward’s candidacy which in hindsight should never have been, to a philandering husband. Geesh. Well, I’m glad she’s SOS. I do have a question, though. How come we haven’t read a book like this about the two Presidents Bush? There were lots of rumors about the two of them but strangely, nothing explosive has ever been written. Why is that?
P.S. I like Sec’s words about this schytso country swinging back and forth between the Bible and Hustler Magazine – makes me laugh.
coakley is down by 1 to repub brown in latest ppp poll. why? indies going repub and the base isnt exicted or united. this is ma. and we have a real race on our hands.
latest poll shows reid with 33pct approval rating. how does he pull this off? reid’s maccaca moment is all over the place. apparelty he liked obama bc he didnt have a “negro dialect.” yes bc aas are supposed to talk um how sen reid? this guy is a fool and is nothing but a let down. he has major base issues in nv. he hasnt delivered the pub opt or other union items. will unions be able to turn out a depressed base?
the folks at the front of this hcare debacle are taking major hits. sen nelson has cratered in ne polls, lieberman appears done in ct polling, in ma a 3 to 1 dem state coakley now is tied with the repub bc the base is unhappy w/hcare etc.. sen lincoln has her worst numbers yet. 35 pct approval. time to pull a dodd blanche, harry.
Great post. This is why I read you. Because even though I know you admire Secretary Clinton, you tell it like it is. As for Edwards, I’m afraid I was duped. I knew what Obama was all along, but I must admit I was fooled by Edwards.
i agree with bowers- reid just isnt viable anymore. he has until march to decide.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16868/harry-reid-has-become-unelectable
blue27 says:
09 January 2010 at 8:13 pm As for Edwards, I’m afraid I was duped.
I was, too. I was originally going to vote for him in the primary, but eventually decided on Clinton.
texan4hillary says:
09 January 2010 at 8:02 pm
Let’s hope this isn’t the real picture just yet. If so, we’re in trouble. I donated to Martha Coakley’s campaign today. I would like to see more progressive women in the Senate. We need them.
im reading the globe is out with a poll tommorrow with coakley up 15. dems are freaking over reid’s prospects and they should
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31300.html
On target as usual, Taylor. But hell, no, I’m not going to read the book. Right now I’m reading Gerard Manley Hopkins and Russell Shorto’s book on Dutch Manhattan. I rely on you to let me know about these things.
On another topic, will someone tell me how to put up a gravatar on this site? Word Press refuses. I admit there is some similarity to me in the assigned picture, but I am not purple.
I just finished the New York Magazine piece. Wow! I never really liked Edwards. Way to slick. I liked what he said but not him. I would have guessed however if a scandal ever broke about him it would be that he was gay. He always seemed a little gay to me. How wrong I was.
I have a theory about Elizabeth. I have had it for awhile. She had those younger kids so late in life I wonder if she used fertility drugs? I wonder if her cancer and her irrational behavior are due to a hormonal stew she was in at the wrong age? Just a thought.
As for Bill and Hill. I long ago decided that their marriage and it’s rules were up to them.I admire both of them as individuals (knowing full well that he is a dog) and as a couple. They obviously have a strong bond and love and admiration for one another,it is just not conventional. I really don’t spend any time trying to psychoanalyze either of them in this regard.It is not very important to me.
I wish our whole country would just grow up on the subject and get over it. Judge a leader on what he/she accomplishes.
On the other hand I admire the Obama’s apparent committment to one another. They sure appear to have that thing going on.
I also read that included in the book is an explanation for Ted Kennedy’s anger at WJC and I don’t believe it for one minute.
It is like the frozen tundra outside and I have spent the entire day online! Jeez! I’m going to be crippled when I get up here in a minute.
Nite all~
I was against Edwards because of his looks, I admit it. He just looked too slick.
About Clinton, I have become more indifferent to his behavior. Back in the day, the feminist table in the faculty dining room, me included, was incensed at Gary Hart. The idea! Since then, and since GWB, my standards have changed. Sure he’s a rat, but he’s our rat. And much more attractive than Edwards.
Lake Lady says:
09 January 2010 at 10:15 pm
Well, it’s good to take things with a grain of salt, especially if there is money to be made on it. My grandfather used to say, “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”
That’s how I feel alphonsegaston. He’s our dog! ha !
Wise man lynnette,your grandfather.
Nite~
I agree with Lake Lady about the Clinton marriage. It’s pretty clear that they do love each other. If they are able to tolerate the physical infidelities, they don’t matter to me. Clearly, they relate in their intelligence, each has a huge regard for the other.
And they are both very committed to leaving the world better for their having been here.
alphonsegaston says:
09 January 2010 at 10:21 pm
Lake Lady says:
09 January 2010 at 10:26 pm
You two make me laugh.
I still like WJC, too, Edwards not so much.
Pilgrim says:
09 January 2010 at 10:30 pm
I agree with you, Pilgrim.
Hi All, first time poster and don’t any offense in my comment. I find it interesting that Taylor has chosen to focus on the salacious and gossipy aspect of the book, but Lake Lady has punched some holes in Mark Halperin’s tales. But the real story here is how the DNC and most of the Democratic leadership while pretending to be neutral, conspired to take away the nomination from Hillary Clinton. They changed the rules, stole her delegates and pushed her to abandon the race when she was winning. Clinton won the popular vote during the primaries, but at the end it did not matter because the super delegates gave had the final say. That was the plan all along and Clinton was never going to get it.
Yes, alinosof, you are right. And that is the big story. Not that I didn’t suspect it, but actually I think I blamed the media more than the party. Tim Russert was just channeling Harry Reid?
Wonder where health care would be now if she had won? A useless question, but it comes to mind.
I am glad SOMEONE (alinosof) has finally mentioned that.
gravatar: http://en.gravatar.com/site/signup
Sally says:
09 January 2010 at 7:43 pm
I do, too, Sally, she’s really doing a tremendous job @ State.
blue27 says:
09 January 2010 at 8:13 pm
So appreciate that, blue27. Thanks.
texan4hillary says:
09 January 2010 at 8:15 pm
I’m not aware that Chris, who is great at polling, knows the tentacles of Reid’s power inside Nevada, which are real. But no doubt he’s in big trouble.
Lake Lady, the section in the book to which you’re referring is available in an update in the post. It’s ugly.
I do have a question, though. How come we haven’t read a book like this about the two Presidents Bush?
Lynnette, I’m not aware of either Bush being a serial philanderer the likes of William Jefferson Clinton. And though George W. Bush’s politics and ineptitude knows no bounds, he never showed such disrespect or humiliated Laura Bush in this way, spanning decades.
alphonsegaston says:
09 January 2010 at 9:27 pm
Yep, I do it so you don’t have to!
alinosof says:
09 January 2010 at 11:05 pm But the real story here is how the DNC and most of the Democratic leadership while pretending to be neutral, conspired to take away the nomination from Hillary Clinton.
Apparently, they didn’t think she could win in the general election. We now know from exit polls during the general election, that she would have beaten John McCain bigtime. So much for the establishment and their smarts. She is way ahead of them anyway, IMO.
alinosof says:
09 January 2010 at 11:05 pm
Welcome. No offense taken, but there is no reason to ignore what’s being reported everywhere as being in the book.
And I’ve said this before, but you’re simply wrong, alinosof. Clinton lost the election when her team, under her management mind you, forfeited February to Obama. The colossal incompetence of not planning for primaries killed her campaign. She went out stronger than Obama, no doubt about it, but Clinton’s campaign lost it for her. At the end, she had way out performed her campaign team.
As for the DNC being worried about her, etc., no doubt, and that was known at the time, though their details are going to give some new energy to re-fight the primaries while ignoring the obvious, which I wrote above.
Thanks, Taylor. That is me in Niskayuna, NY, 1939. My mother said my eyes were violet. I wonder.
Taylor, let’s just agree to disagree on what cost Clinton the nomination.There’s no doubt that her campaign mishandled the caucus states. But that was not a fatal blow and despite those mistakes in February, she remained very competitive through out the end despite the bullying from the party leaders. The way Michigan and Florida were resolved was very detrimental to her campaign . The super delegates chose the democratic nominee for the party, not the people and that’s my point.
The facts are the facts, alinosof, and as an analyst that’s where I live and breathe. After February, it was over, because she was fighting from behind, which she had every right to do and I was there right with her, but the tide had turned with no way to make it up gracefully. Coupled with her campaign team never tapping online fundraising until the story broke that she had lent her campaign money, I’d say, well, I’ve said it. You have to look at this unemotionally to see the truth. I have and do.
Taylor Marsh says:
09 January 2010 at 11:16 pm
George H.W. Bush was rumored to have had several affairs during his marriage, one when he was ambassador to China and another when he was VP. Hillary even alluded to it once publicly but then was shot down for it. The lady’s name was Jennifer somebody. Maybe it’s the same lady for both over a long period of time like 25 years: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108467,00.html, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/12/55616.shtml
When he was VP, supposedly he was with her and got in a car accident at the time in D.C. The handlers took care of the matter so it wasn’t made public. (My aunt told us long ago, separately from this article, about the China incident and Barbara Bush having a nervous breakdown and having to come back home when he was ambassador to China – my uncle was a Colonel in the Marine Corps and many people in the military supposedly knew about this affair). For George W. Bush, perhaps you are correct on the serial philandering part over decades. I think I was rememberng his father. It was junior who supposedly got a woman pregnant (before he was married) whose abortion he paid for or something to that effect, never visited the woman in the hospital. When the press tried to interview the woman she wouldn’t talk. And something I read about Laura Bush moving into the Mayflower Hotel temporarily while he was President and drinking. Just google these subjects and they will show up.
Taylor, I respect your analysis but I don’t share it, okay? As for the conversation that supposedly happened with Ted Kennedy, how convenient that Kennedy is no longer around to validate the claim in the book! For the sake of arguments let’s assume that WJC made that remark, how is that a racial stereotype? In the work place the least qualified and juniors employees usually serve coffee, make copies and sent faxes. And this is what turn off Kennedy? I’ve read other theories explaining why the Kennedys chose Obama over Clinton and this was not it.
Convenient? Sometimes things are just ugly, even if we don’t like the picture. But in the end we will never have confirmation, not that Kennedy would dignify a request for comment if he were alive.
And I didn’t say WJC’s remark was the reason Kennedy chose Obama. I said that as reported the remark would have been enough for Kennedy to split from his friend.
Well, I guess we’re stuck with the non-philandering Obama, and the celestial choirs are singing.
“Convenient” in the sense that it’s suitable for the authors to publish the claim today since Kennedy is no longer around to validate of disprove it. This quote attributed to Clinton just does not square with what is known of WJC public service.
Former Pres. Clinton has every right to make a public statement denying he said it and challenging the authors. If the reporting is incorrect or a misquote, in fact, he would be wise to do so, for the very reason you just gave, alinosof.
And to look at the statement that caused WJC so much grief, though I fought against the reports of how WJC’s quote re: Jesse Jackson and South Carolina was interpreted, because I don’t believe Mr. Clinton has a racist bone in his body. I doubt if most people would believe he said that remark if it hadn’t been made in public.
At several points in the primary campaign Bill Clinton was tone deaf, not close to exhibiting the political genius he did back in his political prime. Let’s just say that more than once Hillary could have done without his help. There were a lot of people inside camp Hillary that felt the same way.
i agree taylor. as someone who was involved in many deep ways with the campaign for hillary i was appalled. we were told to not worry about obama or edwards. period. hillary had it locked up. it was nuts- in politics u must always be ready for opposnents. the people in her campaign fought bitterly and many did not speak to each other very early on. it sucked. worse- as someone who onetime worked in the campaign infastructure we were left belly up with NO money to fight. mark penn said hillary would win on super tuesday bc ca was winner take all. we told mark he was wrong. ca hasnt been winner take all in like 30 yrs! it was heartbreaking and enraging how badly the campaign was managed. with no money feb was brutal.
one other note- the failure of the hillary camp to tap into her grassroots until they needed money bad. the team had a ground up stucture and even when they got to tx they no clue who were her longtime loyalists and who wasnt. the grassroots was pushed aside so folks who never had been to tx could run the campaign in exclusion of our hard work. so she lost the delegate count from our state. it was just sad and torurous.
im proud she ran. but as someone who was right in front there i do not believe hillary is a martyr here. big mistakes were made against a candidate from chicago poltiics.
texan4hillary says:
10 January 2010 at 12:44 am
Thank you for your candid analysis. I remember WJC saying they had no money for February, or the caucus states, something like that.
Thanks, Taylor & Texan. I had heard this from outside the Hillary camp and naturally did not want to credit it. So long ago, it seems. Just why such a competent woman got into this fix is a question I am asking.
Just why such a competent woman got into this fix is a question I am asking.
It’s why the marriage matters.
Ah, so.
oh lord msm is going to pummel the clintons on this stuff on bill maybe having another affair in 08. i wonder if this is why the thing got bungled by the hillary camp- they were not preoccupied with the potential threat of obama or edwards but with keeping bill’s affair under wraps. this may explain alot to me.
Good insight texan…thanks.
Well the Sunday talk shows are going to be a review of conservative thinking from both parties,how enlightening. Ba humbug!
I don’t know, but when a politician digs into, investigates, spies on their opponent’s (or spouse) actively looking for, trying to find a sexual scandal to use for their own personal political gain is dirty politics. I expected this kind on stuff from the likes of Ann Coulter, Linda Tripp and the republicans and was disappointed that that Obama would sink so low.
“(My grandmother) is a typical white person…”
B. Obama
JimK
I don’t think Obama departed in anyway from his own standards. He has long shown he would do whatever it took to win. He just always acted as if it was only the other candidates who might employ Obama’s own methods.
While the book is non-fiction, both admit to admiring Joe Klein’s “Primary Colors,” a thinly disguised novel based on a philandering candidate’s White House run.
The book was sold on a proposal that is believed to have fetched a mid- to high- six-figure sum. The manuscript isn’t due to be handed in until next spring, with a book due out in late 2009. (HarperCollins is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Post.)
snip
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_C8hkNpUu9l6j2WrgGiiEvK#ixzz0cE1QVwOX
Knowing little of the book, except for what Taylor posted above… Is the main emphasis on juicy tidbits about the Clinton and Edwards camps… while Obama and his campaign team are handled with kid gloves?
I really don’t know the answer to my question…
They are all politicians and frankly… so all the behind the scenes stuff is certainly believable… but I recall being appalled during the primaries by certain things the Obama campaign team did… I hope what was said, done, on their side is scrutinized as well…?
Hillary is a political animal That’s the long and the short of it. She voted to allow bush to go to war in Iraq because she felt that if she did not she would pay a political price when she ran for the presidency in 2008. (The irony is that that vote cost her the nomination in 2008. Sometimes the voters see through the phoniness.) She made a fortune from trading cattle futures as a lawyer for the Rose law firm because she liked money. She stuck with the sex addict Bill because divorcing him would have been devasting to her political career. Hillary is a calculating, dishonest, corrupt, what’s-in-it-for-me politician just like her not so better-half Bill. Peace
Imhotep… I am still amazed that you post in such a vicious manner… namely about the Clintons… and always end with Peace… It just doesn’t work..
…and you always speak as if you have the candid camera exclusive truth when what it is …is opinion.
whitepaw says:
10 January 2010 at 11:49 am
One thing is that Obama’s family side is unified, with his team never operating on competing camps and rivalries like what happened in Hillary’s campaign. She couldn’t control her people or didn’t try, perhaps, with someone else actually at the helm. Still, her mistake.
The *tactics* Obama used is quite a different subject. That’s why David Plouffe’s book is such a joke. No one inside or close to the campaign on Hillary’s side recognizes the Plouffe image of the Obama campaign, which played as dirty as it gets. Nothing wrong with that at all, but Plouffe wasn’t about to paint that picture, instead leaving it totally out. A rewrite of what was reality is being kind.
Lake Lady, the ‘facts’ are available to anybody. Granted some of them have to be dug out as one would dig in the ground for diamonds. But they are there for anybody to read and digest. When someone forms an “opinion” based on one or two facts, that opinion is generally incorrect. The MSM will give you a fact or two and they will dole them out here or there. That reveals only a partial picture about what is actually the ‘truth’ of a thing. Thus, some “opinions” are more informed than are other “opinions.” Peace
okay… I am going to tell my garage sale story. Sorry to those of you who have heard it. About a year before the start of the primaries I was at a garage sale. I was picking through some stuff on a table and found a Hillary button. I picked it up and said to nobody,”I love Hillary!”
The woman across from me was a simple country woman. She said ,”I do to and I will tell you why.”
Standing there on a chilly fall day she told the story of her daughter who had died of bone cancer over ten years before. She described herself as young and dumb and poor. She said she was told at the hospital that there was nothing more that they could do and it was time to take her daughter home.
Shortly after they returned home her daughter was in terrible pain and not knowing what else to do she took her back to the hospital. They refused to admit her daughter. Desperate, this simple country women called the White House,can you even begin to imagine the idea, thinking you could get help by calling the White House?
Each person she spoke to forwarded her on to another person. Within three steps up she was talking to the assistant to Maggie Williams the First Lady Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff.Within hours her daughter was re admitted,she was stablized on pain medicine and she eventually left with a plan and the right meds.
This was a woman who was not political and our conversation was pure happenstance. I did not get her name but I did tell her story in a letter to the editor of my little local paper during the primaries.
I ran into her after the election. She was working the counter of a Subway.I told her I had written about her. She thanked me and said she could not have done that. I asked her what she thought about the election? She was disappointed that Hillary did not win but she was hopeful about Obama.
That kind of thing happens from the top down. It is an expectation that is set by an administration.It is part of a long pattern of trying to help simple people who can not do a thing for you.
whitepaw, Peace doesn’t work for you? Is it the concept of Peace that you’re having a problem with or is it something less complicated? Do you object to my using the word Peace or do you find my use of the word Peace offensive? Please don’t be so obtuse and explain what your real issue is. Peace
Lake Lady, that sure was a heartwarming story. But it says more about Maggie Williams than it does about Hillary Clinton. Peace
Taylor~ I agree Hillary’s campaign did not serve her well and that the cohesiveness of Obama’s people was a big plus.You are right too that it was her responsibility. I think that is a flaw of Hillary’s. I think she has a tendency to put blinders on and charge ahead working as hard as she can.
Like I said Imhotep you are like a younger brother always tweaking.
Imhotep..
What LL says..
And no problem with peace at all… just your way of using the word.. in general…
Other than that – I enjoy your posts..
I can’t speak for whitepaw who is more than capable of speaking for herself but I think she is refering to you habit of chucking spears and ending what you say with the word peace.Have her ever heard of the Dali Lama”s idea of being what you desire.
Again… what LL says.. Thanks LL
Taylor Marsh says:
10 January 2010 at 12:15 pm
________________________________
Perhaps. But none of this was done in a vacuum or on anything resembling a level playing field.
The professional malpractice of both the Democratic Party and the media is well-documented, as was their willingness to aid and abet the Obama campaign in their penchant for playing the race card and indulging in the widespread misogyny blanketing Washington DC.
Taylor Marsh says:
10 January 2010 at 12:15 pm
whitepaw says:
10 January 2010 at 11:49 am
One thing is that Obama’s family side is unified, with his team never operating on competing camps and rivalries like what happened in Hillary’s campaign. She couldn’t control her people or didn’t try, perhaps, with someone else actually at the helm. Still, her mistake.
The *tactics* Obama used is quite a different subject. That’s why David Plouffe’s book is such a joke. No one inside or close to the campaign on Hillary’s side recognizes the Plouffe image of the Obama campaign, which played as dirty as it gets. Nothing wrong with that at all, but Plouffe wasn’t about to paint that picture, instead leaving it totally out. A rewrite of what was reality is being kind.
—–
Thanks Taylor — Just saw your response… Perhaps you could write the “tactic” book to counter Pouffle’s account?
LL. — Like your story and I had not read it before.. Thanks
Welcome
Like I said before, Hillary lost the nomination because she vote “Yes” to allow bush to go to war in Iraq and for no other reason. Peace P.S. For all the yard sale people out there: one man or woman’s garbage is another man or woman’s treasure. So it is with what does or does not constitute “spear chucking.” Peace
tweak..tweak..tweak… Peace
whitepaw, there you go being obtuse again. Rather than sounding like some dying bird why don’t you explain to us what, exactly, I said that wasn’t factual? Or are you just another graduate of the secularhuminist school of nah, nah, na, nah, na, idiocy? Peace
what is wrong with secularhumanism? Peace
Well… a few … “obtuse” comments based on your last few posts… sorry — I have a life and certainly don’t have the time to analyze all that you type.
So..
1) I happen to agree with Taylor that Hillary lost due to a mismanaged campaign… and not only because of her vote on the Iraq war. I also see other viewpoints as valid…media bias, and the internal play within the Democratic party. I’m certain that some… e.g. you.. voted against her due to her vote on Iraq… but I believe you are simply a piece of the pie. As LL has stated … your view is simply an opinion, as is mine… neither view is a “fact”..
2) Your comment re: “yard sale people” is a tweak… Perhaps it’s just me… but your post came across as demeaning… dare I say arrogant and judgmental.
JoeCHI says:
10 January 2010 at 12:46 pm
Hillary Clinton began the primary season with the nomination her’s to lose. When it began only Edwards was a barrier, which “The Change” captures well from the teasers I’ve read.
Additionally, the team leading Clinton positioned her from the beginning as not only entitled, but inevitable. Three years ago next week, I wrote about it:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2007/01/22/clintons-inevitability-campaign/
They didn’t let go of this horrible strategy until it was way too late.
I was a primary force on what evolved eventually, as everyone knows. She proved herself to me, as I watched the candidates debate. The opposite pull to that reality is that Hillary’s campaign was her biggest opponent. The Iraq war vote was an obstacle, no doubt. But we also see what the shallow apology culture of policy beliefs, which Imhotep is suggesting, gets you. As I wrote many times, I still contend Obama would have voted for the Iraq war along with everyone else, as he’s never shown any penchant for leading a charge. But that’s not even the issue either in what killed Hillary’s campaign.
In the end the buck stops with Hillary.
I’ve been reflecting on this, that her campaign was confident she would win. In our household, we were very cautiously optimistic, amazed when she did well in primaries, thought sexism would do her in. Some in the media were saying she felt “entitled,” but I thought that was just the media.
Thanks for the reality check. Feet of clay, alas. We love her anyway.
The idiocy of the constant “Iraq war vote” is nothing less than nauseating. HRC DID NOT VOTE TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ. But it is soooooooooo much more fun to distort and lie as you go after a political enemy. It’s just not good citizenship…..you know Obama did ask for citizenship as opposed to partisanship. who knows – maybe he meant it.
You know, you might even READ the resolution and do so with searching for the truth in mind.
If Obama thought it was such a bad resolution, he wouldn’t have scrubbed his own much ballyhooed anti-war speech (that he made from the safety of his very liberal Illinois Senate district) from his Senate web site. He’s been bamboozling folks from likely longer than he knew what the term meant.
A little correction to Imhotep above or whoever it was who said that Hillary Clinto made “a fortune” selling cattle futures.
She did not make a “fortune.” She made ten thousand dollars. There is nothing illegal or immoral about trading in futures, in any case.
I appreciate that garage sale story by Lady Lake. I don’t buy the speculation that it was just Maggie Williams, not HRC herself. It was probably HRC. She is a woman of actions more than just words, although, thank God, her words are clear, clearly spoken, and she accepts responsibility for her own words/actions. As she sometimes has said she has this “responsibility gene.” Let others do the whining and bamboozling, she simply gets up and gets on with the job at hand.
Yes, she is to love and admire, and I am also one who does.
“Yes, she is to love and admire, and I am also one who does.”
As do I.
Taylor,
Very quickly, don’t forget that HRC sticking to Bill has more than a little to do with her deep and abiding Methodist faith.
I don’t buy the divorce angle on bit. Ronny Ray-gun managed just fine, and if divorce was a problem, Johny Mac’s ugly divorce to his first wife should have put him out of contention for dog catcher, never mind President.
Other than the faith angle, I won’t even try to figure out what makes the Clintons click as a couple. I’ll leave it to minds much more informed than mine. But I am fairly sure that crass political consideration has exactly nothing to do with HRC sticking with Bill. Over and Out.
Velvet says:
10 January 2010 at 8:45 pm
Me, too.
spincitysd says:
11 January 2010 at 1:41 am
See Jenny Sanford.
Hillary made a profit of about $100,000 on her time in cattle futures. But she did not do anything wrong in earning that money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.
The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.
snip
Even allocated trades would not necessarily have benefited Clinton, Melamed added. “I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions,” he said.
snip
Blair, who urged Clinton to enter the high-risk futures market and ordered most of her trades, said in a recent interview that he “talked her into” her first futures trade in October 1978 before paperwork on her account was completed. It was liquidated quickly, he recalled, because “it was bigger than she wanted and required more money.”
A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair’s pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. “Red” Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.
Why would Bone do so? Bone could not be reached for comment, but Blair said he thought he knew why. “I was a very good customer,” he said, noting he paid Bone $800,000 in commissions over the years. “They weren’t going to hassle me. If I brought them somebody, they weren’t going to hassle them.”
Besides, he added, Bone would not worry if he agreed with his clients’ bet on which way the price of a given contract would go.
Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas’ largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor.
snip
The White House defense of Hillary Clinton’s preferential treatment was that other customers in the same office also were allowed to trade without having enough cash in their accounts.
While Clinton’s account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades — those of 50 contracts or more. Clinton traded positions of 50 or more contracts only three times.
One was a “day trade” on hog contracts that netted $2,553. Melamed said “day trades” are the only way to assure profit
Snip
Bill Clinton speaking at Diane Blair’s funeral service in 2000. Comments reflecting on Hillary and Bill’s more than 28 year friendship with the Blairs.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_30_36/ai_64995639/
Pilgrim
Imhotep shows his hatred for Clinton and Imhotep’s incredible ignorance of almost anything involving her or Bill Clinton. One can only assume it is a chosen path Imhotep follows because virtually everything said is either easily proven untrue or is simply unprovable.
My guess is that Imhotep believes Gennifer Flowers started her ten year affair with Blinton in the Excelsion Hotel – over two years before it was ever built.
Paula (I need a nose job) Jones was a malleable nut case dressed up and pranced out by the Heritage Foundation to spout provable lies.
Hillary made a profit of about $100,000 on her time in cattle futures. But she did not do anything wrong in earning that money.
Hi djjl,
That $100,000 profit is misleading in that it is not offset by the $40k losses, she never had over ~60k equity in the account and with 50 percent short term capital gains, she probably realized around $30k (July 23, 1979, she withdrew $60,000).
July 20 ……… $61,537
July 23, 1979: She withdrew $60,000 and never traded again, closing the account in October.