home

"Some In Obama Camp Bristle" Because Bill Clinton "Will Do Whatever They Want"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:29:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

When I discuss Clinton Derangement Syndrome, this is what I mean:

Mr. Clinton pledged the same without elaboration. “Whatever they want,” he said. He added that it was between the president-elect and his wife. “You should talk to them. I’ll do whatever they want.” . . . Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

Excuse me? As I have seen the story, the Clintons were minding their business when, last Thursday (yes, it has only been a week) President-Elect Obama asked Senator Clinton to come see him in Chicago. President Clinton has offered to remove any impediments he may cause. And "some in the Obama camp bristle?" What in the hell? Meanwhile, it turns out Tom Daschle did some negotiating of his own:

In picking Mr. Daschle for health and human services, Mr. Obama is seeking to install a close ally and early supporter of his run for the presidency. Although no announcement will be made until after Mr. Obama first unveils his economic and national security teams, the transition office announced Wednesday that Mr. Daschle would also oversee a health policy working group to develop a health care plan.

That could address what Mr. Daschle’s friends said was a condition for considering the cabinet job, his insistence that he not just be the head of a huge bureaucracy but a chief player on the subject he has literally written a book on.

(Emphasis supplied.) How about that? Daschle had "condiitons." Any "bristling" about that? Any talk of "Drama Queen" Daschle? Of course not. His name is not Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Cheney, Gonzales Arraignment Friday | Napolitano To Head Homeland Security >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    "Some In Obama Camp Bristle" Because Bill Clinton "Will Do Whatever They Want" | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yes, Tom Daschle. . . (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:44:17 AM EST
    1. Made demands to be a "free operator" in his position rather than a mere cog in the Obama wheel.

    2. Has personal lobbying entanglements that, if the Administration lives up to its anti-lobbying promises, will mean that he will have to recuse himself from some of the work in his department.

    3. Has a spouse who is apparently having to rearrange her professional life to permit Daschle to have the job.

    Nonetheless, it sounds like he's a good person for the job.  I hadn't know about his interest and background in health care reform.

    Please understand (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:25:21 AM EST
    I am not criticizing Daschle. He has every right to ask for what he wants.

    I am just contrasting the coverage.

    [ Parent ]

    thank you--great post (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by kempis on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:27:15 AM EST
    I doubt it will make the Clinton-haters rethink their assumptions, but it's still a nice breath of logical air.

    [ Parent ]
    That is my point, too. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:05:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The difference being (none / 0) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:36:46 AM EST
    that Daschle was offered and accepted the position whereas we believe that Hillary was offered the position but she has not accepted.  Additionally Daschle was a key player in the Obama campaign and it was almost a foregone conclusion he was going to get a significant position in the Obama Administration.

    The Hillary story fits into Obama/Hillary tension narrative.  So of course the press is going to play that up.  

    [ Parent ]

    The difference being what? (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:40:20 AM EST
    It is reported Daschle accepted. I agree he has. After he negotiated what he wanted. Or do you think there was no negotiation?

    It is reported Clinton was offered and accepted subject to Bill vetting. I think that has happened as well.

    The difference is the Daschle negotiations were covered by no one because no one seem to give a f*ck about Daschle and his lobbyist wife. While the Clintons. well, they are EVIL.

    Let's face it, you have CDS too. It has been demonstrated for at least a year at this site. I am sure you do not recognize it but it is apparent to anyone paying attention as I have.


    [ Parent ]

    Whew, everthing okay this mornin, BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:44:24 AM EST
    I hear ya though.  Double standard in the most simplest terms, isn't it.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:49:40 AM EST
    I've written comments like this for years.

    I make it clear to my participants that my threads are not for the faint of heart.

    Things are much much nicer in Jeralyn and TChris' threads.

    [ Parent ]

    Politics is a contact sport. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Thanin on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:55:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I follow politics in large part (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:58:16 AM EST
    because it is more competitive than silly games like college football (especially in the Southeast),
    so it's more interesting to watch.
    And every once in a while, politics matters, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no, here it comes (none / 0) (#20)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:59:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'll let that one go (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:09:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hey, the substance is superb...the delivery (none / 0) (#15)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:54:02 AM EST
    well, shall I say, you often share my cantankerousness (must be a good word -- spell check didn't underline).

    [ Parent ]
    I think we have come up with a great system here (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:57:08 AM EST
    We mix it up in my threads and we play nice in J's and TChris'.

    Take your pick as the mood strikes you.

    [ Parent ]

    Posters should also take into account.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    ...that you are likely to remember what they have said in the past, even if they don't.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, BTD (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    How bout you show me where I criticized the Clinton's?

    You have a zero tolerance policy for criticism of either Clinton.  You talk of Obama fanatics but you are the exact same way regarding Clinton.

    The fact that you attribute "CDS" to the media focusing on Hillary Clinton rather Tom Daschle speaks volumes.  You ignore the fact that Daschle is a person that only political junkies know and Hillary is a household name.  

    And just as you love to fly off the handle on the slightest rumor regarding Obama there are people that do the same about Clinton.  

    The media would LOVE for this to last weeks because the longer this goes on the more drama they can create.  Drama sells.  It is as simple as that.

    [ Parent ]

    Your own attempt to absolve yourself (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    condemns you:

    "You have a zero tolerance policy for criticism of either Clinton.  You talk of Obama fanatics but you are the exact same way regarding Clinton."

    Because I defended the Clintons from unfair attacks you forget my own criticisms of the Clintons.

    I submit that your comment proves my point.

    [ Parent ]

    Remind me (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    of BTD's position on Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment.  Zero tolerance for criticism, you say?

    [ Parent ]
    You bring up something (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    from 9 months ago?  

    Really?  Truly compelling evidence.

    And where exactly was I exhibiting CDS?  In the nearly year I have posted here, I MIGHT have criticize either Clinton about 4 times.  Yet I have CDS?

    I have stated on several occasions here, that I think that Hillary is a fine choice for SecState.  But because I don't get all hot and bothered because the media is obsessed about her, that means I have CDS?  

    [ Parent ]

    Something from 9 months ago (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    or 9 days ago or 9 weeks ago.

    I criticized the Clinton campaign a number of times. you see, the primary race ended in June. But I critcized them on policy, on process, on everything.

    As for evidence of your own CDS, well, to me it has been obvious for quite a long time. I will not bother delving through your comments again.

    I think we both know the truth.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously you do not (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    Otherwise you would know how utterly ridiculous the charge is.

    It's simply an easy way for you to dismiss a comment of mine.  

    [ Parent ]

    Your error is that you seem to find it (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    completely normal that the Clintons receive such constant negative exposure, excusing it by saying that they are so well known.
    That is no reason at all!
    Actually, it's highly unusual that such popular figures (with the public)  are attacked so relentlessly in the press.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    we disagree.

    I am moving on.

    [ Parent ]

    I like Daschle's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by WS on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:42:56 AM EST
    idea of a Federal Health Board.  In the NYT, the article the Federal Health Board would combine the federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid into one program similar to the Congressional health benefits package.  

    I hope Franken wins.  Every Democrat elected gets us closer and closer to UHC.  

    [ Parent ]

    "We Believe"? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:21:47 AM EST
    Who is "we"?  I believe she accepted any offer that was made, and they are just tying up the loose ends with how to handle Bill's finances.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    The difference being that Daschle was offered and accepted the position whereas we believe that Hillary was offered the position but she has not accepted.

    The difference is that the entire offer - negotiate - accept cycle was not harped on by every media outlet from here to Timbuktu.

    Additionally, although the same "problems" exist in the Daschle appointment as in the rumored  Clinton appointment (worse, in fact -- neither Clinton spouse has every worked for a lobbying firm, both Daschles have) they are somehow not problems for Daschle (although, to be fair, the Times is reporting today on the possible ethical conflicts).

    [ Parent ]

    What's up with the attempt (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:44:03 AM EST
    at political equivalency?

    No one cares about Tom Daschle.  No one cares about Janet Napalitano.  No one cares about Penny Prtizker.  

    People care about Hillary Clinton.  She has a huge base that loves her and a huge base that hates her.  The media knows and wants her on the front page because she creates controversy like no other candidate is likely to do.  Fair or not that is reality.

    [ Parent ]

    It is reality (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    pointing out how absurd that reality is - a double standard for politicians, one for non-Clintons, one for Clintons - is worthwhile.  If the MSM can't be kept honest, at least the blogs can be kept honest.

    [ Parent ]
    It has absolutely nothing to do (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    with honesty or double standards.

    Hillary and Bill are arguably the 2 most well known politicians in the world.  It is absolutely unreasonable to expect them to be treated the same as everyone else.

    [ Parent ]

    GW (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    is one of the most well known politicians in the world.  He doesn't get treated the same way though.  Funny that...

    [ Parent ]
    President Clinton or Bill (5.00 / 14) (#79)
    by mm on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    2 term Democratic ex President;

    Post Presidency dedicated to building the most wildly successfull humanitarian foundation in all history.

    Yet, he is alternately referred to in the media as either a mafia godfather or a crazy uncle walking around in his bathrobe who has to be kept in the attic.

    There is nothing "reasonable" or normal about that.  And it makes me sick to read so many people who call themselves Democrats accept this without blinking an eye.

    [ Parent ]

    Wonderfully well said, mm (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    That's exactly the way they do it, a mafia don or a crazy uncle-- actually both.

    [ Parent ]
    I completely disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    ...if I have to accept that expecting the media to be fair is unreasonable then what's the point of even trying to be reasonable or fair. Why not just leave all my thinking up to those with power or a large platform from which to broadcast their biased opinions?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but they aren't treated like (none / 0) (#105)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    everyone else.  Even an article explaining some simple fact must include some negative tid bits for some reason.  When the NYT first wrote about Bill's donors and Hillary in the primaries they featured a full page spread written by Don Van Natta. It began by listing all of the "so called financial scandals" of the Clintons back to 1993. Then in the last few paragraphs was a description of how scrupulously HRC's campaign had built a fire wall around his work and the author gave grudging approval. Why was that necessary? Do you see what I am saying?

    [ Parent ]
    Who is creating the controversy? (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    You say "she creates controversy." But it is the media/blogs that chooses to focus on certain facts surrounding Hillary and Bill while ignoring the same kinds of facts surrounding Tom and Linda.  If their last names were exchanged, the media/blog focus (and the "controversy") would shift. The press is very dishonest in its reporting on the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama/Hillary tension narrative ... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by cymro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    ... that you find so natural is itself a manifestation of the issue that BTD is objecting to.

    [ Parent ]
    Daschle is a good at rounding up votes (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    That's for sure. Look at how he got the Senate Dems on board to support the Iraq War Resolution! I think if he is convinced we need universal health care, we will get it.

    [ Parent ]
    Too many political reporters, not enough political (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:45:03 AM EST
    news.

    Maybe they should just stop trying to make up news and go cover the all too real collapse of the Bush economy and stock market.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Thanin on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:52:07 AM EST
    Seems like all these "leaks" are coming from people with too much time on their hands talking to a press too obsessed with Clinton and desperate to act like its still Nov 3.

    [ Parent ]
    Comforting (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:31:01 AM EST
    It's so much more comforting to have Obama surround himself with people associated with the Clinton administration than it would have been to see Hillary Clinton surround herself with people associated with the Clinton administration.

    Where do I get off this bus?

    Watching the way that the Obama entourage is dealing with the Clintons is like being in a fun-house looking at all those distorting mirrors.

    An aside: I noticed that two stories broke and were widely circulated yesterday. One - an "insult" from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan double-daring us to escalate the conflict - and two - the Iranians have enough nuclear material to make one bomb.

    And so we have the media stoking the two festering boils left over from the Bush administration that Obama has expressed a deep interest in cultivating.

    I know that I am cynical beyond help - but the timing of these two "stories" feel like two versions of the Tonkin Gulf incident - "We wuz attacked" combined with the WMD scare. Both laid out at this time to condition us to the continuation of the perpetual war to which we are becoming well accustomed.

    This makes ME 'bristle' (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    Petty bickering and bristling from the Obama camp makes the process look childish. Sounds as if a few are not over the primary. Tom grabbed that Cabinet post on a snap and he set it up so he would only report to Obama. Sounds as if he did not want to be a lesser Cabinet member than Hillary. Just in case, of course. Heh. Has anyone told the bristlers that they won? This is a small thing compared to the everyday 'real' problems they are facing in this world.They told us Hillary supporters to get over it. We did. They need to take their own advice. And stop talking to reporters everytime they get a wart.Reporters will go to the newbies every time. I am rooting for Obama to be a good President and not let petty stuff get in the way.

    Some of the Obama people (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by WS on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:06:12 AM EST
    do need to follow their own advice.  

    Get. Over. It.

    Then again, the netroots Obama people can be a different breed from regular Obama supporters.  I assume most Democrats like both Obama and the Clintons judging from the approval ratings of each.  

    The "bristled" Obama people would be the more hardcore type so I'm thinking there's lingering negative feelings from the primary campaign.  

    Hillary will make an excellent SoS and will serve Obama well.  I can't wait.  

    [ Parent ]

    Cabinet Secretaries (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:11:38 AM EST
    he set it up so he would only report to Obama

    ALL cabinet secretaries report to the President.

    It appears in this case that Daschle will have additional input into what would ordinarily be a White House only operation, a work group not under a given executive department like HHS, DOD, DOT, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    I should have explained it better (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    As per the news reports, one of the conditions that Daschle negoitated was that he did not have to go through the usual channels to Obama in regard to WH staff reviewing issues first.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably just a case of "unauthorized" (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ding7777 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:49:48 AM EST
    contacts with the press.

    "strategic leaks by the Clintons"  vs "the transition office announced"

    Maybe one of Dashchle's demands was that he didn't want Hillary (in the Senate) to rewrite his proposed UHC plan so they better offer her SOS or something?

    hmmm--seems an extreme measure (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    to put her in as important a position as SOS just to be able to end run her on health care. That is easily done in the Senate. Ooops, I forgot, we are talking about Daschle here.  Yeah, I can see why he wants her out of the country a lot. He can't win any fight against her.

    To go further down the road of baseless speculation, my own theory is that Obama does not want her to write her memoir of the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    anti-memoir strategy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by noholib on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    very amusing!

    [ Parent ]
    The things my sick mind dreams up (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    For the record, I think Obama is doing a good job so far with his picks and speculated picks.


    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton sd. he'd be (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    more forthcoming about the primaries/caucuses after the election.  Will he sign an agreement like Queen Elizabeth demands of her butlers?

    [ Parent ]
    I'd be curious to know (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:52:14 AM EST
    exactly which strategic leaks the "Obama camp" is bristling at here.  I bet they would be unable to name a single example of what they mean.
    Al Giordano says (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:06:40 AM EST
    No, it was not Mitchell that first floated this Hindenburg balloon. It was former Clinton White House aide (and reliable media spinner for all agendas Clinton) George Stephanopoulos on who first dropped HRC's name for Foggy Bottom last week. ABC's Jake Tapper reminds:

    George Stephanopoulos reported Clinton's name being in the mix last week on Good Morning America

    Hmm.  I mean, is George really a "strategic leaker" here?

    And man that guy has CDS something terrible.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    The idea of Stephanapoulos being close to the Clintons is just laughable.

    He left the Administration in a huff and was the first one to say "impeachment."

    Al is my friend but he has made a complete fool of himself on this story.

    [ Parent ]

    The Clinton curse (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    Richardson is only the latest

    Panetta, Reich, Stephanopoulos......The Original Judas trio

    [ Parent ]

    ooops (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    How could I forget Leeeeberman?

    [ Parent ]
    That post (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by WS on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:16:31 AM EST
    of his was completely off the wall.  The SoS meeting and stories were an insidious plot by the Clintons to stop Richardson and Kerry from becoming SoS?  

    The truth of the matter is that it was Obama's decision to offer the position to Hillary.  I don't think Hillary ever expected to be offered SoS since Hillary answered all the pre-election speculation about being part of an O Cabinet in the negative .  She probably thought she was going to be asked for HHS or something that wouldn't be as good as her Senate gig .  But then the offer for State came along...

    People like Giardano are probably incensed that Obama would even offer State to Hillary but can't bring themselves to criticize him.  So they take it out on Hillary.    

    [ Parent ]

    As of 1:30 pm PST, MSNBC reports that (none / 0) (#107)
    by wurman on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    the Obama transition team is extremely distressed, etc., over the on-going lead stories about Sen. Clinton's potential appointment as Sec. State, which is allegedly being leaked by Clinton surrogates.

    David Schuster laughingly reported that the above "story" is a leak from the Obama team.

    A.B. Stoddard, The Hill, reports that each & every one of the possible cabinent appointments is the result of continual "LEAKS" from team Obama.

    Kewl kidz in a food fight?

    [ Parent ]

    Personally, I feel (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Amiss on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:47:34 PM EST
    that anyone on Obama's team caught "leaking" anything to MSNBC should be fired on the spot, and believe they still harbor grudges and serious CDS. Hopefully these people will be dealt with severely.

    As a side, Obama's personal cell phone records have been accessed by Verizon employees.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps others in the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:54:12 AM EST
    camp are bristling and Kennedy for offering an impediment to Hillary's acceptance of SoS by offering her a tempting committee position on health care.

    When I heard Kennedy did this... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Thanin on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:00:12 AM EST
    it kind of made me wonder if he doesnt want her as SoS.  It was like when he supported Obama over Hillary, seemingly working against the Clinton political legacy.  But I dont know, maybe thats just crazy talk.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps it is his way (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    of pushing for Kerry.  

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:12:15 AM EST
    I don't get the feeling there is a whole lot of love there.  And it would potentially be the end of MA power in the senate if Kennedy decides to eventually step down.

    [ Parent ]
    There's no love at all (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    between Kennedy and Kerry.  Among many other gripes, Kennedy's staff has from the beginning had to pick up the entire constituent assistance for the two of them since Kerry can't be bothered.


    [ Parent ]
    It is crazy (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    He really wants her as an ally in the Senate on health care, which I think is the single thing he's focused on right now.

    It's an interesting tug-of-war of interests on health care among Kennedy, Clinton and Daschle.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what gets me (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:03:43 AM EST
    Any talk of "Drama Queen" Daschle? Of course not. His name is not Clinton.

    Regardless of the truth, of the facts, it never matters.  IF it involves a Clinton, the press goes nuts, loses all sight of objectivity, fairness, professionalism and gets away with it.

    I said this during the primaries...if even a tenth of the personal, sexist bashing aimed at Hillary was aimed at Obama in a racist way, or any of the others, heads would have rolled.

    The jerks at MSNBC could not wait to take turns giving Hitchens his personal bashing of Hillary spot; ditto CNN.  The only reason the drunkard does not get on FOX is because he is an atheist...and besides the conservatives are not all stupid.  They have been observing the blogger boys and the friends at MSNBC trashing Hillary for years.  They can play grown up now and be the voice of reason while the temper tantrums rage on the so called progressive blogs, and on the adolescent pundit boys of MSNBC.

    I know, right? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    I mean to me Hitchens is the poster child for war mongering left wing neocon. And yet......

    It must truly be that CDS is a get out of jail free card for this Iraw war cheerleaders. Unbelievable.

    [ Parent ]

    This to me no longer seems like innocuous (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    "leaks," rather a concerted effor by some w/in the Obama camp w/key support from the press to torpedo her nomination.  The way every action is spun w/the most negative interpretation disgusts me.  I can only hope there is karma in store for these falsifiers.

    Stupid reaction (5.00 / 17) (#28)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:09:29 AM EST
    Obama says "jump," Bill says "how high," and the reaction of some in the Obama camp is to bristle because Bill won't standing in the way of an appointment that some in that camp don't want to happen?

    They want Bill to give Obama a reason to do what they want, because they haven't been able to get Obama to reject Hillary. That's pretty spineless. Why would Bill do their work for them?

    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:10:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is the best description yet (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    of the convoluted nature of this.  Obama did not have to ask Hillary to be SOS unless he wanted to. He would have paid no political price at all for not having her in the cabinet.  If he made any promises to the Clintons in return for their campaigning for him, they were certainly kept very private. Obama is picking her in defiance of some of his CDS suffering supporters, and they are trying to torpedo it.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh wait a minute. Chuck Todd of the (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:12:58 AM EST
    MSNBC....you have to hate the Clintons.....network, explained.  He explained that the Hillary hating Mike Barnicle (you know, the a**hole who spewed that Hillary was like every man's ex after probate court on the tube and was the tittering cool guy for saying it) is right.

    THIS IS ALL THE CLINTONS DOING.  They are boxing Obama in by telling the public they will cooperate and release whatever information the new administration wants.  WOW, those evil Clintons. How dare them say they will cooperate.  What a filty, low plot....cooperating.

    Rolling my eyes at how petty, stupid and idiotic the entire MSNBC pundit class is....they don't even try to hide their derision of the Clintons.  I truly believe "hating the Clintons" is a condition of employment at MSNBC.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    Well documented at this site.

    [ Parent ]
    If you take CDS (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    to its logical conclusion, the Clintons (all of 'em, Chelsea too!) are the heads of a shadow global government pulling the strings of everyone from Obama to Putin to ObL.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that only makes sense. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    After all, somebody has to eventually succeed the 80+--year-old Henry Kissinger as head of that shadow global government.

    [ Parent ]
    Mmm there is also the possibility (none / 0) (#56)
    by Faust on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    that there is a 6 month grace period where you have to learn to hate them if you didn't upon being hired.

    [ Parent ]
    Already sick of Obama Boosters...Again (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by pluege on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:21:21 AM EST
    I guess its residual flem from the dem primary experience, but I'm already sick of hearing from Team Obama... again. Its going to be a long, tedious inauguration period and honeymoon.  

    It seems to me (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:49:28 AM EST
    that the leaks from the Clinton camp are no different from the leaks from the Obama camp that suggest Bill is the big ol' obstacle to this appointment.

    If some people want to make Bill the bad guy by using him as an excuse for why discussions are still ongoing, they shouldn't be shocked when he sticks up for himself.

    They are mad because he is not (5.00 / 13) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:53:23 AM EST
    going to be the excuse not to pick Hillary.

    Obviously, the dissension is in the Obama camp and if reporters wanted to write a story here it is about dissension in the Obama camp over Obama's apparent choice.

    That story seems not to occur to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill is not a 'fool me twice' kind of guy (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    I imagine he hated being used as the excuse for her not being picked as VP.  Seems the same people are trying to float the same excuse, and he's not having any of it this time.

    Yes, there is a story in there if only we had a functioning press corps.

    [ Parent ]

    Why did the "reporter" include this? (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    The paragraph immediately following the bristling report, in the Times article cited above:

    The tension could foreshadow a complex relationship burdened by suspicion and enmity should Mrs. Clinton become secretary of state. By putting her in the cabinet, Mr. Obama could remove a potential thorn in the Senate on issues like health care and a potential rival for the nomination in 2012 if his term proves rocky. But he could also face a rival power center within his own administration with her on his team.

    This is written as the 'reporter's" words, not attributed to any rumor mill, etc., as I read it. Huh??? This is speculation, editorialization...not reporting.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    Speculation about 'what to do with that woman' is a press corps pastime.  No facts need be introduced.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's crazy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    Try to imagine Hillary as a "thorn" in the Senate on health care.  Uh, only if Obama decided not to act on the issue at all and she insisted on pushing it, I guess, but that's not going to happen.  Is Ted Kennedy a "thorn"?

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (none / 0) (#55)
    by Faust on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    Couple Media Darling with Honeymoon Elect Period with CDS and there is no way they could actually write something like that.

    [ Parent ]
    I watched in amazement this morning... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    ...as the pundits on morning joe smoothly transitioned Bill's statement from "whatever they want" to "whatever it takes." Once one of them suggested that alternate reality quote they all continued to say it that way even as Mika held up the Times from page with the actual quote. They turned it into a Bill Clinton as Tony Soprano moment.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe the sore point (5.00 / 10) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    for some in the Obama camp, is their reluctant realization that Mr. Obama wants Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state because he needs her.  

    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    I'm sure they are reluctant to admit he needs a cabinet at all.

    [ Parent ]
    What I find rather amusing is that (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM EST
    in theory this "Team of Rivals" concept was widely embraced and celebrated.  In practice, it is definitely freaking a lot of people out.

    I saw Kearns Goodwin speak two days after the election.  She gave her Team of Rivals speech and commented specifically on the coming Obama Administration.  It was a very romantic and engaging concept as she presented it.  I still can't get over the fact though that for all that effort that Lincoln made with his team of rivals he still had to win the Civil War through force rather than through political means; and in the end his rivals did get to him and almost achieved a coup.

    So... Here we go...  On the Obama ride this time.  We'll see how it all goes.

    I think there is probably a reason (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    Lincoln is the only one known for trying it! I have not read Goodwin's book, but I've read enough about Lincoln to know it was not exactly smooth sailing.

    This situation is very different though - Clinton is already closer to Obama on policy and more of a team player than Lincoln's rivals were.  I think Goodwin is going to see that this administraiton is not going to be much like Lincoln's.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm listening to the book on CD (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    (36 total).  I'm on #8 and haven't even gotten to the actual election campaign yet, much less the cabinet composed of that team of rivals.  

    [ Parent ]
    Another level of Clinton hate is in the . . . (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by wurman on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    . . . various bureaucracies involved with the vetting process.  A former colleague of mine, who labors in the GS-9 bowels of the foreign service, e-mailed me that some State Dept kahunas & some FBI field agents "gossip" to reporters concerning "stuff" where they seem to know just a little bit about the Big Dog & his perceived behaviors since leaving office.

    Some of the dis-information being leaked is not from the Obama camp nor from the Clinton camp.  It originates with rightwingnutz in the Bu$h Admin who have partial knowledge of tangential information.  They stir up the pot of merde just because they can.  Some reporters cultivate these folks for obvious reasons--they are totally anonymous & the info is partly accurate & somewhat plausible.

    Oh, ugh! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Gah!  Yech!  How depressing.


    [ Parent ]
    The Full Paragraph (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president's activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

    Which is very strange.  If you believe the Times's sourcing, what the hell does it mean to be "eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job."?

    What kind of working relationship is that going to be, where the candidate for the job thinks the boss is trying to come up with excuses for not hiring her?

    Just as soon (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    As those infected with CDS give it up and move on.

    Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    It's a very real phenomenon, and it manifests when the criticism of Clinton (Bill or Hillary) is based not on facts or on legitimate beefs but on disproven "factoids," lies propagated by the MSM and the right-wing smear machine, or on cowering fear of unnamed secret Clintonian powers (e.g. "they're undermining Obama;" "Hillary wants Obama assassinated.") I don't think everything that either Clinton has done is wonderful, and I have some gripes with both of them (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.) but I base that criticism on what I can determine, as much as possible, to be factual.

    To use your analogy: If I say (as I frequently do), "Israel must be held to account because it engages in an apartheid-like policy of suppression against the Palestinians that flies in the face of international law and common humanity," that would be a legitimate criticism. If I said "Israel is a bad place because it's run by Jews," that would be anti-Semitic.

    It really isn't that hard to separate reasonable criticism from CDS, racism, or any other form of bias. Perhaps you should look more carefully if you really don't think it exists.

    The NY Times is correct (none / 0) (#26)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    ... in referring to Bill Clinton as "Mr. Clinton" rather than "President Clinton". "One President at a time" is the rule.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:09:13 AM EST
    That is the Times style. They refer to President Bush as Mr. Bush as well.

    [ Parent ]
    And Hillary Clinton as (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:13:38 AM EST
    "Mrs. Clinton."

    [ Parent ]
    They used to refer to all (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    women as either Mrs. or Miss, depending on marital status, whether the women liked it or not.  There got to be such an uproar about it, I believe they now keep a file on who wants to be called what.  I think "Mrs. Clinton" is how she asked to be referred to, but that may have been back in the Clinton administration and she hasn't considered it important enough to ask that it be changed.  But Times style doesn't use titles after the first reference, so everybody's stuck with Mrs., Miss, Mr., Ms. Maybe an exception for active military, but I'm not sure about that.

    [ Parent ]
    If it is her choice: fine. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    If not, it really annoys me.

    [ Parent ]
    NYTimes style (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    is incredibly eccentric, old-fashioned, fussy, and very strictly enforced.  I'm sure she'd prefer to be called Senator Clinton, but as between Mrs. or Ms., a woman politician of her generation and broad constituency is mostly likely going to stick with Mrs.  There are more folks in upstate who would be put off by "Ms." than there are folks like us in NYC who find "Mrs." annoying.

    I'd love to just do away with it all.  There's no acceptable purpose to pegging people's marital status.


    [ Parent ]

    Mrs. Ms. Miss (none / 0) (#99)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    I thought the current Times policy was that all women are "Ms.", UNLESS the individual specifically asks to be called otherwise.  Thus, it was "Ms. Palin" throughout the campaign, but Hillary, having once specifically asked to be called "Mrs." is called "Mrs. Clinton".

    [ Parent ]
    Howell Raines gave her a choice. (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    It was either "Mrs. Clinton" or "that shrill harpy" ...

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you feel sorry for Howell (none / 0) (#106)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Raines? Retired from the Times for the least of his sins, painting seascapes and trying to rehabilitate his career with an occasional mea culpa.

    [ Parent ]
    What happened to "Senator" Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is convention to refer to formers ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by pluege on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:25:25 AM EST
    by their biggest title even after they no longer have the position including: President, Ambassador, Senator, Congressman/woman, etc. Its the best we can do not having an "official" gentry.

    [ Parent ]
    You are mistaken ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:06:24 AM EST
    as far as "President" is concerned. (Check my link above.) For such titles as Senator, Governor, Congressman, et al., are indeed used as courtesy titles even after their period of incumbency.

    [ Parent ]
    "Former" President like (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:27:16 AM EST
    "Retired" General is perfectly acceptable.  "Ex" President on the other hand is in my opinion unseemly.  For the sake of brevity after establishing that he is the Former President, I would use "Mr. Clinton" - but I would also establish that when refering to Mr. Bush that he was President Bush at the time the article was written.  When he leaves he'll be the Ex President - kidding - he'll be Former President Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll buy that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    Emily Post specifically objected to the designation "Ex President".

    [ Parent ]
    I heard on NPR that NYTimes begins by using the (none / 0) (#116)
    by jawbone on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    highest office's title for the first reference, but then uses the normal honorific of Mr., Ms, Miss, or Mrs. as appropriate (or requested). So, the first reference to Pres. Bush uses "President," and thereafter he is referred to as Mr. Bush.

    NPR said they use the same style approach. This was in response to a listener saying NPR had disrespected Sen. Obama by not using his political title throughout a report.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe the reason they bristle (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    is because they're looking for jobs themselves?

    NYT:  

    In fact, all of the foreign policy jobs in the administration have been held up because of the uncertainty over the appointment of Mrs. Clinton. Once that's cleared up, Democratic aides said, the rest of the national security team will follow.
    Please move on (none / 0) (#88)
    by joel dan walls on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

    You know what's just as tiresome as these Huffington Post items with unnamed sources in "the Obama camp"? It's BTD's obsession with these tiresome, unattributed pseudo-quotes.

    Get over the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" rigamarole. Please.

    How about we "get over it" (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by otherlisa on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    when it stops?

    [ Parent ]
    NYTimes (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:35:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I predict... (none / 0) (#104)
    by GreenSangha on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    I predict that the controversy that has leaked out over Clinton as the Sect. of State will cause Obama to withdraw the offer.  I hope I am wrong, but given that we know Obama does not like drama, all the pundits reactions to the leaks have made this much more controversial than it should be.  And I don't think that there has been CDS evident at this site at all (accept in the comments).  I don't understand where those comments are coming from, but they aren't based on a careful review of this blog.

    "Clinton Derangement Syndrome"... (none / 0) (#108)
    by joel dan walls on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    ...is a mythical construct, particularly as attributed to folks who decided to support Obama last winter/spring. An accusation of CDS serves a function similar to an accusation of anti-Semitism aimed at those who criticizes Israeli actions: It's a rhetorical sleight-of-hand designed to pre-emptively delegitimize any criticism of Hillary Clinton, instead of tackling the criticism head-on.

    Personally, I'd be fine with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, which is not to say that she would be my first choice.

    Rhetorical nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cymro on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    Intelligent people can distinguish anti-semitism from valid criticism of Israeli actions. The same is true of attitudes towards the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    "Clinton Derangement Syndrome"... (none / 0) (#109)
    by joel dan walls on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    ...is a mythical construct, particularly as attributed to folks who decided to support Obama last winter/spring. An accusation of CDS serves a function similar to an accusation of anti-Semitism aimed at those who criticizes Israeli actions: It's a rhetorical sleight-of-hand designed to pre-emptively delegitimize any criticism of Hillary Clinton, instead of tackling the criticism head-on.

    Personally, I'd be fine with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, which is not to say that she would be my first choice.

    you can say that again! (snrk) (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:22:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm no fan of the "CDS" slinging (none / 0) (#117)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    as an Obama supporter, but I really don't find what the Clintons have done to be bad. Of course Bill will do what the Obama folks need to clear the way for HRC's appointment-- and it's not bad that he would say so. And while I'm a huge Al Giordano fan, I think he's off about this. HRC's a good pick, and will be a team player.
    I think some of the frustration was due to the leaks about Hillary "mulling over" the decision, which I'm sure rankled the more resentful Obama supporters (unlike BTD, I call both sides' more intemperate advocates "resentful--" I don't single out one side as deranged). Daschle didn't mull. What he negotiated was leaked AFTER committing. But that's beside the point-- HRC SHOULD be mulling. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

    Heaven help Obama and Clinton from their true believer supporters.

    "Some In Obama Camp Bristle" Because Bill Clinton "Will Do Whatever They Want" | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment