High Drama ObamaNOTS

This is so much the very definition of irony:

Team Obama, after all but offering SecState to Senator Clinton, is expressing EXASPERATION with the Clinton camp for the difficulty in getting a clean vet on President Bill Clinton’s many entanglements. . . . Given that everyone's mystified by how deliberately public the Clintons have made this once secret process . . . [G]enerally the sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama.”

The irony of leaking to Mike Allen your complaints about "Clinton drama" is too freaking rich. Obviously Allen's Obama team contacts are NOT part of the NO DRAMA part of the Obama team.

And from the actual No Drama Obama Team:

[T]here's been no delaying, there's been no acrimony . . . Clinton and her team have acted professionally and appropriately.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< NYT Seeks Pardon For Norfolk Four | Dan Rather Lawsuit Progresses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I would also point out... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Tony on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    that Marc Ambinder's sources say the exact opposite of this.

    ...there's been no delaying, there's been no acrimony, and that Clinton and her team have acted professionally and appropriately.  

    What an interesting story :) (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    Becoming so though only because of the "drama" story :)

    Thanks (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    Obama needs to find a way to cure a few of his team members of CDS.  Its usefulness has passed.

    No Cure (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    Obviously it affects the seat of reason. Very selective though, most smart progressives that I know are able to use their faculties unimpeded on everything save Clinton.

    It is as mysterious as it is irrational. At best friends of mine just go quiet and stop paying attention once they realize that I do not have the disease too.


    It truly amazes me, (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Left of center on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    how many people on the left follow Rush Limbaugh's marching orders to hate the Clintons.

    or maybe all (none / 0) (#27)
    by slr51 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    he needs to "cure" is a reporter who had a strong tendency to quote RNC talking points verbatim during the campaign and is now trying to stir things up because he can't get any real information.

    Team Obama has already discredited this apparently false report from Mike Allen.


    Or it is coming from the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    camp - from people trying to derail her appointment which is entirely plausible.

    I didn't realize what I was getting into when I pointed out at another site that these accusations about the foundation were unfounded and wrong to keep perpetuating until I came over here and saw that Marshall was pushing it.  I was told that I was clearly not "inclusive" about Obama and it was like being right back in the middle of the primaries!  Oh joy oh rapture!  What fun.  Back to getting attacked when you're just strolling along trying to keep it reality-based.  I didn't even say anything bad about Obama - except - gasp - I did question why they are wacking this beehive and didn't just leave Senator Clinton out of their cabinet mix if they are panicking about Bill.  That's probably where I "crossed the line" into "enemy" territory.  Will this ever end?

    Okay, I'll admit I did probably make another big mistake...  I offered up a theory about why they would ask Senator Clinton to do this job that was based on the fact that the needs are so huge both internationally and domestically that having a strong, well-known person of the stature of Clinton might make it easier to advance international initiatives without forcing Obama to be globe trotting at a time when the domestic needs are so great.  That by being able to send Clinton out as a credible envoy with her high gravitas quotient might allow the Obama folks to be more efficient by moving both international and domestic policies along more quickly.  I also added that her husband might be seen as a bonus in this light.  Clearly, I that means that I hate Obama right? oy


    Media Matters has a page devoted to (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by slr51 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    Mike Allen's repeatedly lax journalistic standards over the past year or so. He more than a bit of a hack and appears to have tried to manufacture a controversy to get attention. A generic "democratic official" is given as the source. If this "official" had ANYTHING to do with the Obama campaign Allen would be the first to say so.

    Remember this is the same press who did a huge build up on how Hillary was likely to be ungracious and hurt Obama with her convention speech and kept screeching that Bill absolutely would misbehave ... they were soooo certain.

    It's just more manufactured controversy because both Clintons and the Obama team are all acting professionally, so the Media schmucks have no story!


    They can only go back a year? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    I could go back much farther with Allen.  The guy is a liar.  I'm not saying that his reporting has any integrity, but he isn't the only one reporting that the Obama camp is having a hard time vetting the Clintons - particularly Bill.  It is not impossible to think that someone on Obama's team suffers from CDS to the degree that they are pushing this story.  And how, by the way, did the Rahm Emanuel story get out before he was ready to publicly accept the position?  Camp Obama may be losing its no leak mojo.

    Mike Allen (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:27:56 PM EST
    Villager extraordinaire.

    As Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by JThomas on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    indicated last week...this is the least loose lipped transition in her memory and the media is going crazy trying to find any sources for anything...hence they are now going to hearsay for speculation.

    Believe this, nothing that is being reported by the media is coming from Obama's camp unless by design.

    Politico is a gossip site,basically. They have no concerns about actually having solid sources for their daily claptrap. They have to fill space every single day and when in doubt..go with rumors.

    I've heard of the permanent campaign, but (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    must we have 4 years of the permanent primary??
    This is ridiculous.

    Oh Jeeze (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    Who is making up that they are leaking this bilge?  This sounds like two words that some "leaker" expounded into paragraphs.  If Obama truly dislikes drama as much as it appears that he does, with unemployment figures where they are they had better hope they don't caught being so creative.

    although a careful reading of Allen's article (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by John DE on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    Show that the opinions are not sourced to the Obama team, but rather to a single Democratic official who proceeds to give his view of what someone else thinks.  

    The telephone game (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    Politico, seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    Politico totally pimped out  the Hillary/RFK assassination nonsense and did it to boost hits. They have no credibilty.

    I thought this was rich (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    But it could prove problematic for Obama if the former president continues to seek donations from foreign countries - at the same time his wife is asking them for diplomatic concessions as Secretary of State. ...

    geez, get a grip.  It's not like we're negotiating w/Bush.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on...you?

    And that means (none / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    that this "story" comes from someone with a case of CDS and nothing more to offer.

    Drama Drama Drama (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    Welcome to Clintonland!!! Population now including Obama and his people (not including Clinton veterans already in)! (snark :) )

    I'm assuming the Politico's contacts are not fans of Hillary as Sec. of State ... Get Over It!

    This was one reason I opposed HRC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Abbey on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    I believed her general election jeapordy regarding Bill's foreign contributions, library and foundation were greater than Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers.

    Ummm (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:02:22 PM EST
    You missed your target. That post was 4 down.

    Geez, what a fantasy (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    Boy, gotta be some ugly slimy stuff going on in that charity, for sure.  Why?  Because it's BILL CLINTON! I mean, he has such a terrible record of corruption, with Whitewater and all.

    Did you read (none / 0) (#30)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    the whole post? (hint: Ambinder's sources disagree with Politico's and even Politico is saying the former President will arrive soon from Kuwait)

    As usual I see some Obama supporters continue (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by iceblinkjm on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    to lap up the crap that the MSM shovels into their mouths like it's top sirloin and accept it as truth. Here I though the most ignorant unthinking folks ever were the preview of the GOP.

    Eleanor and Franklin suffered (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    this same line of attack.

    For those who imagine they have Clinton 'fatigue' as opposed to CDS, imagine the Roosevelts.

    Same song.  Second verse.

    Only this time, some Democrats have fallen for it.

    Propaganda is powerful stuff if you're not well armed in defense with a modicum of reason and a memory bank or bit of historical perspective from...you know...actual facts.

    Good God (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    What is there left to know about Bill Clinton?

    And - if there is more, couldn't this bunch of the best and the brightest have done their homework before putting Hillary once again on the chopping block?

    The irony of "no drama Obama" ... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    is he's all drama.  Effing Greek drama, no less.

    His cultists, on the other hand, are broad comedy.

    nothing to see here (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    It seems pretty clear to me that this "leak" did not come from Obama's team.  It came from some unnamed "Democratic official."  What does that even mean?  Heck, I helped run my local caucus.  It could have been me!

    I like the Obama camp's response.  There is no delay.  She is being completely professional.  No drama.  

    I wouldn't presume the Obama camp (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    is as airtight now as it was during the election. The inner circle has expanded, of necessity, and a lot of Washington insiders with a lot of press contacts are now involved. When Obama mostly relied on his Chicago team it was easier to keep a lid on things, and I think they did an admirable job of that. But people are treating his organization now as if it's the campaign, only moved to Washington. There has never been a leakproof White House, and I don't expect there to be one now, either. Especially since selective leaks are often used to advance the President's agenda.

    As for Bill, the fact that people are frothing at the mouth over him doesn't make him the polarizing figure. It's them.

    Statements like this drive me nuts:
    "I do believe that if BC's finances compromise HRC's ability to be successful and associatively, Obama's, then they should walk away."

    The only reason to think that Bill's finances are a problem is because the CDS folks keep saying they will be. Although we do have the precedent of the Clinton's tax returns, which did turn out to be filled with... oh, wait.

    The notion that the only person qualified to be SoS is someone whose spouse has nothing to do with foreign countries is ridiculous. Here's a thought: how about if we presume that the former leader of the free world, who had the highest security clearance possible and was entrusted with the welfare of the entire nation, can be trusted not to compromise the best interests of the United States? He's a former President, for crying out loud. This idea that he needs to be more closely vetted than anyone else is insulting.

    This drama (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    Has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton.  It is just bad journalism selling papers

    So many leaks... (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    I gotta wonder if he made a deal with everyone during the campaign - keep your mouths shut now and you can talk as much as you want once I'm elected.

    You've got to acknowledge (none / 0) (#7)
    by OldCity on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    sooner or later, that the Clintons provoke extreme reactions.  Like it or not, BC could be a HUGE drag on the Obama administration; HRC's presence in the cabinet will just beg for insane scrutiny into everything BC does.  

    I am tired of hearing about the guy in a negative way.  I admire him, but admire him with full acknowledgement that he is utterly capable of tremendous self aggrandizement and poor decision making...the problem, of course, is that he's not the President now, nor is HRC.  But there will be a natural focus on them.

    There's a substantial difference between CDS and Clinton Fatigue.  I have the latter, and I supported HRC in the primary.  I too, tend to discredit Politico gossip, but I do believe that if BC's finances compromise HRC's ability to be successful and associatively, Obama's, then they should walk away.  

    That said, picking her effectively marginalizes her ability to dilute his agenda...so it's a good strategic move on his part, especially given the fact that she's, you know, qualified.


    Just wait for the Obama Chronicles (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    and a Chicago Project.

    Honestly (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    What past president isn't utterly capable of tremendous self aggrandizement and poor decision making?  You sort of have to be stricken with ego problems to even believe you are qualified for the job to begin with.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    everyone who's ever run for public office at any level is allowed to be ambitious, except the Clintons.

    Why would HRC want to 'dilute his agenda'? (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    Because there is always a hidden (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    Clinton agenda that cannot be seen by the naked eye I suppose.

    yeah, that's what i figured. (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    She might try to alter photographs of him too.

    She did (none / 0) (#16)
    by OldCity on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    run against him, no?  She did denigrate his views on diplomacy, no?  

    In other words, they disagreed on a bunch of stuff.  He gets her out of the Senate where she could be a barrier and into a position that she's qualified for and can be an asset.  That's good strategy any way you look at it.

    And, yeah, I know all President's are egotists.  That said, if you think that the media doesn't display a kind of unhealthy interest in the Clintons, and that the right won't drag BC into the national conversation at every opportunity, you're nuts...that, or you've lived somewhere else for the past 16 years.  They're blaming BC NOW for the econimic crisis, for God's sake.  



    She wouldn't be a barrier in the Senate (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    For goodness sake, their views on most policy issues were well-aligned and she is a junior Senator with little power.

    One point (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    I disagree with is that she has no power in the Senate. If Hillpac is ever replenished she'll have more than enough power and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing.

    Even without Hillpac she has power because of her high profile.  Running in the primaries got her plenty of great exposure and increased the size of her following.

    Bet on it that she'll be asked to help in many Senate campaigns in 2010.


    She ran against him, (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    but they are pretty much in sync on the vast majority of issues. Even if they weren't then, she's been campaigning for him for months, and I seriously doubt she'd be interesting in 'diluting his agenda'.

    Shock...horror!!!!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by marian evans on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:16:23 AM EST
    She ran against him! How dare she.

    Now if she'd been a Republican, that would have been just fine.

    And of course, if Bill Clinton was Ronald Reagan then wouldn't that be peachy - we know what a wonderful/amazing/inspiring/"transformative" politician Reagan was.

    Or so the American left keeps telling us.


    ZOMG (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    Bill's got a big ego (and who knows why -- the only substantive thing he ever accomplished in life was being elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth -- twice).  Hillary makes reporters lose their collective sanity and say crazy things because...I don't know why, just because she's Hillary!

    Please give it a rest, and then maybe the reporters will give it a rest too.


    You can't (none / 0) (#34)
    by OldCity on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    honestly believe that anyone will ever give it a rest, can you?  

    I love the guy, but I can admit that he's a polarizing person.  You know he is.  You know she is.  Just because you think that the interest in them is misplaced, and that the rumors are BS isn't going to stop the rumors or dampen the opposition research.  Ain't gonna happen.

    Now since I've already said she'd be good at the gig, we can dispense with that.  My question is, is she worth the opportunity cost?  Is she worth the rash of Bill Clinton stories and the Republicans going nuts?

    Obama apparently has decided she is.  

    It's not CDS to point out the obvious, just as it's reasonable to point out that though they agree on principle, method of attack is something else entirely.  


    He is polarizing because . . .? (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    You suffer from Battered Dem Syndrome.

    It is perfectly natural that the Clintons get slimed. They are Dems who won after all.

    Just pathetic.


    Battered Dem Syndrome (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:52:36 PM EST

    The only people who said that (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    HRC was polarizing during the primaries were Republicans.  They did not like her positions. The Left has picked up the GOP talking points to denigrate stands she takes that they do not like. That is the real problem. they keep rehashing the narrative so as to move their candidate to the "purity zone."  It ain't gonna happen. Obama and Clinton are very close. Some of his handlers were hoping for a pony, but that ain't gonna happen either.  Better to be concerned about this guy Brennan or Cass Sunstein.

    Personal health reasons (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    Maybe the Clintons can handle these nut cases, but it really makes me crazy.  

    Hillary as Secretary of State (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    would give her the opportunity to undermine the "polarizing" label.  Secretaries of State do not engage in partisan politics at home.   She could rise above it all in representing the United States abroad.

    Perhaps some Hillary supporters would not want to see her isolated from domestic politics....but that would actually help her.  There's not all that much turf left in the Senate for her anyway....

    2016 is doable for her.


    I think her running days are over (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:25:17 PM EST
     I liked he idea that the '90's were good years for the country and with what little help Bill had from the media and the GOP he still accomplished alot.  Now Obama can have a really good run at fixing the same problems (only worse) than Bill had and there is another Clinton helping him and us.  And in some ways Bill is still there providing certain skills as well. It seems like we have come full cycle to bringing our country back from the precipice.  I wanted Hillary to win the presidency for those reasons and now I feel that we have something pretty close to that.  I feel more confident in Obama now.

    What you're (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    saying is that any time an unusually talented Democrat comes along we should all pull in our horns because the GOP and the Villagers will slime them unmercifully.

    All due respect but that's caving in and encouraging mediocrity.


    You are assuming that she wants (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    to dilute Obama's agenda?  And many are assuming that Clinton at state and Bill continuing his world wide philantrophy are all negative?  Gee I see the glass as half full, not half empty.

    Wouldn't they already have walked (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    away if they thought there was an issue? Seems to me the answer to that question is yes.