Hillary (& Bill) Clinton

excerpts from the Iowa Daily Report

official draft Hillary website:

October 1-15, 2003

… Des Moines Register article by Jane Norman, “Iowa delegation is split on alleged leak. Both sides bring up the Whitewater investigation. Harkin says this is more serious; Grassley says Bush is behaving better.”. Excerpts: “Iowa politicians, many with long memories of Clinton-era investigations, have plenty to say about Washington's latest scandal over allegations that an undercover CIA employee's name was leaked for political reasons. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa appeared on the Senate floor every day this week to demand a special counsel be appointed to probe charges that someone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed a covert officer's name. The officer, Valerie Plame, is married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a leading critic of administration policy on Iraq. "If a situation ever called out for a special counsel, this is it," said Harkin. "This really does bring back memories of enemies lists." Former President Nixon was found during the Watergate investigation to have kept a list of political opponents. The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would conduct a full criminal investigation into the leaks, and the president has promised full cooperation. But Harkin said it is a"sweetheart deal" for Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate his own administration, despite Ashcroft's promise that career professionals will do the work. "This is a gross violation. This is not some little real estate deal someplace," said Harkin, a chief defender of President Clinton in the 1990s. Republicans praised Bush's conduct and contrasted it with that of the Clintons when they were embroiled in the Whitewater investigation. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said that Bush warned his staff members that relevant records should not be destroyed. "Just think how different that is than . . . the telephone records that Hillary Clinton had and were lost in the White House and mysteriously showed up one day," said Grassley. Records from Clinton's work at a law firm were subpoenaed but missing for two years during the investigation of the Whitewater land deal. They were discovered in 1995 in the reading room of the White House residence. Bush knows "you don't get any place in government by covering up," said Grassley. "If he dug a hole and pulled it in after him, the criticism would be much higher than it presently is," he said. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ia., said the Justice probe is proper. "I think it's very common knowledge on the Hill, the motivation of this Joe Wilson," said Latham. Wilson makes no secret of being a left-leaning Democrat and is expected to endorse the presidential bid of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., according to the Washington Post. In 2002, Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger and debunked claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium there. The president repeated that claim in his State of the Union address in January. Rep. Steve King, R-Ia., said "the person that ought to be investigated" is columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Valerie Plame's name in a July column. "I just see this as part of presidential campaign politics," King said.  Rep. Jim Leach, R-Ia., called the leak a "very serious and unfortunate" incident. "There are two issues at stake - the implications of removing the cover of a covert agent and the issue of possible political efforts to delegitimize an embarrassing report," said Leach. Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Ia., added: "This matter requires an investigation, and we should let the career investigators determine the best way to proceed. If they determine there needs to be a special counsel to investigate the situation, I will support that decision as well." Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said an independent counsel is needed. "It appears some White House officials cannot be trusted with classified information," he said. "It is unacceptable to allow individuals who have such little regard for national secrets access to sensitive information." (10/02/2003)

… Greg Pierce, The Washington Times, writes in his  Inside Politic’s column: “Century of criticism”. Excerpts: “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, accused the Bush administration of attempting to "undo the 20th century" by rolling back federal environmental regulations. Speaking at the League of Conservation Voters dinner in Washington, D.C., on Monday night, Mrs. Clinton told a crowd of about 550 environmental activists that the Bush administration is determined to reverse more than just environmental regulations, Marc Morano reports at www.CNSNews.com. "When I first got to the Senate, I realized that on so many issues that I thought were important for our country and the world, that the [Bush] administration wanted to turn the clock back, and they certainly wanted to undo everything that the Clinton administration had done — which I admit I took a little personally," Mrs. Clinton said. "Then it became clear that [the Bush administration] didn't want to just turn the clock back on the Clinton administration, they wanted to go all the way back and undo Franklin Roosevelt and were on their way to Teddy Roosevelt." Mrs. Clinton added: "This was an ideologically driven agenda to ... try to undo the 20th century when it came to the frameworks of regulation and law." (10/02/2003)

… Hmmmm, Bill Clinton’s ace guy Bruce Lindsey has shown up at ‘Camp Clark’ to get the Clark soldiers in better shape – ah-ten-SHUN! Paul Bedard’s column, Washington Whispers” reveals all in today’s USNews.com. Here are some excerpts; “…it's the little things--like a press release using Alaska's postal abbreviation for his home state of Arkansas--that nag his operation. Which is why Bill Clinton's longtime handler, consigliere, and taskmaster has been brought on board to crack the whip. "It's not rocket science," says Bruce Lindsey. His role: in the first weeks, help the campaign get on schedule and provide the tips to flawless scheduling. Stuff like making sure Clark has enough time after speeches to shake hands and kiss babies. Allies of both say their Arkansas ties--not any Clinton connection--led Lindsey to help Clark. "I try to be helpful," says the normally press-shy Lindsey, "and it helps that I live in Arkansas and the campaign is here. Clark has a lot of good people around him." And more are coming. Whispers hears that Clark's team plans to woo aides away from other stumbling presidential campaigns, like that of Sen. Bob Graham.”

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Poor Bob…]  (10/05/2003)

… Talk about fire-power, Hillary Clinton is coming to Iowa November 15th to lend her fame to the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson Day Dinner fundraiser at Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines. Does this stop speculation she’s going to slide into the 2004 Presidential race? Excerpts from the Thomas Beaumont article in the Des Moines Register: “This is the ultimate statement she is not running," Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer said Saturday. "Frankly, we wouldn't have her emcee if there were even a possibility she would become a candidate. That would be giving her a higher chair than the other candidates, which would be unfair." … Clinton felt the Iowa event marked an appropriate time to get involved in the 2004 race as a supporter. … But she could also overshadow the candidates whom she will be introducing,. "Ultimately, it's a good thing for the party. She's a celebrity," retired University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Jones said. "But she could create a sense of yearning among the undecided Democrats, that they wish she would be in the race." (10/05/2003)

… Did Bill drain Hollywood dry? Back in the 1990’s, Bill Clinton drilled a money gusher as Hollywood handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to his prezzzz-i-dentialness. But alas, things have changed. With new campaign finance laws now in effect against mega ‘soft money’ donations, the whopping donations have stopped and Hollywood has turned into, well, Mudville. Now that the law limits individual donations to $2k, the Dem candidates are striking out right and left in tinsel town. Here’s some interesting stuff in today’s  Boston Globe, written by staffer Anne Kornblut: quoting director Rob Reiner: "There is still money to be gotten here; it's just not in the huge sums it was before. Because of the lack of the ability to raise soft money, it's a very different kind of campaign." Reiner got $4 million for Al Gore’s 2000 run; the Reiner-fundraiser this year for Howard Dean only bagged $125,000. Today’s Dem candidates are reduced to buzz instead of bucks. And clearly, there is no particular Democratic candidate that strikes Tinsel Town’s fancy yet. As Howard Dean and Wesley Clark saw, who campaigned there recently, there are a lot of watchers and not many givers in Hollywood. (10/05/2003)

… It looks like Hillary Clinton has declared it’s Payback Time. USNEWS.com’s article by Gloria Borger, “Payback, thy name is politics!” is timely. Borger recounts how the then-first-lady Hillary Clinton protested LOUDLY when her – I mean, Bill’s – fluff was in the fire. Excerpt: “You can't make this stuff up. Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a first lady under fire, argues against the appointment of an independent counsel in the Whitewater case. It would "set a terrible precedent," she writes in her bestseller Living History. She loses the fight--and goes on to say that the decision to request an independent counsel was a bad idea that "sapped the administration's energy . . . unfairly invaded the lives of innocent people, and diverted America's attention from the challenges we faced at home and abroad." But that was then. Today, Senator Clinton is blessed by new revelations about the usefulness of special counsels. The controversy over the leaking of the name of a CIA agent has "reached a level where there needs to be a thorough, nonpartisan, professional investigation," she says. "The best way to assure the general public, as well as interested parties, that this is going to be conducted in a totally aboveboard way with no conflict of interest entering into it is to appoint a special counsel." O, Irony!” [EDITOR’S NOTE: well said, Ms. Borger.] (10/07/2003)

... Here's an editorial in today's Daily Iowan, written by the Iowa City newspaper's editorial board, lamenting the media's Hillary's-going-to-run 'fixation.' Excerpts: "Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines intention as a determination to act in a certain way. This is an important word to understand. Hillary Rodham Clinton has repeatedly made her intentions clear about a run for the presidency in 2004: She has none. However, some members of the media are still fixated upon the possibility that she may enter the Democratic race. It's time that we laid this suspicion to rest and focused upon the nine Democratic candidates whose words we accept at face value. The latest speculations involving Rodham Clinton stem from activity here in Iowa. She has agreed to be the master of ceremonies at the Iowa Democratic Party's annual fund-raiser on Nov. 15. ...In the words of Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer, her agreement to emcee is "the ultimate statement that she is not running." Why do we need an ultimate statement? Fischer went on to say that if there were any chance of Rodham Clinton entering the race, she would not be allowed to emcee the event. It would give her an advantage over the other candidates. Yet, that seems to be what the media are persistently doing. ...There are nine other individuals in the Democratic Party who intend to become the next president of the United States, as well as an incumbent Republican. They deserve our interest and attention. Whether or not we agree with Rodham Clinton's decision not to run for president, it's time that we stopped speculating and began focusing upon the current candidates.  (10/09/2003)

… New York Senator Hillary Clinton raises her voice on prescription drug coverage through Medicare. In today’s New York Times, writer Richard Perez-Pena gives his account: “The bills in Congress to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare would actually raise costs for millions of New Yorkers and result in poorer coverage for many of them, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Friday. She said that she would oppose any bill that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee, unless the committee came up with a bill more generous than the ones already passed. “Either version, the Senate or the House, would represent a net loss for most retirees," Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference. The bills' supporters have disputed some of the numbers behind these claims and conceded the validity of others. But they say that the argument misses the point: that the bills as drafted would be a net gain for Medicare recipients over all by providing significant relief to the people who need it most — those with very high drug costs. …Both Congressional bills would impose premiums, deductibles and co-payments for the drug plan on all but the poorest Medicare recipients. For people with modest prescription drug needs, the cost of participating in the plan would exceed what they now spend on medicines. Anyone who spends less than $800 a year on prescription drugs would actually pay more under the House bill; those who spend up to $1,100 would pay more under the Senate bill….The existing bills would also increase out-of-pocket costs unrelated to prescription drugs for all but low-income Medicare recipients. Both bills would increase deductibles for doctor visits. The Senate version would also impose a co-payment for laboratory tests… Some employers who pay for drug coverage for retired former employees would probably drop that benefit if Medicare were to pay for medicines. …Mrs. Clinton said that at a time when employers are already finding ways to drop medical coverage, the government should not give them an incentive to do so. (10/11/2003)

… Okay, IPW just couldn’t resist this one. As uncovered in Paul Bedard’s (USNEWS.com’s editor and chief reporter of Washington Whispers…) ‘Paul’s Weekly Web Picks’… it’s HILLARY – click here --   (10/12/2003)

… Has Hillary Rodham Clinton run out of time to enter the 2004 presidential race? An online Fox News report today: some say, Nope. Headline, “Clock Ticking for a Hillary Presidential Bid.” Excerpts: “Oct. 4 “was the 12th anniversary of Bill Clinton running, so most people have seen that date as a benchmark as the latest date a candidate could get in the race to win,” Democratic Party spokeswoman Deborah DeShong said. Hillary Clinton has regularly and clearly denied an interest in running in the 2004 election, but that has not stopped rumors from circulating, or some Democrats from hoping the New York senator makes a go of it. But success in a presidential contest is heavily dependent on grassroots organization and early campaigning. … “Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, but we do have a process that favors and indeed has prohibitively favored front-runners who start early, raise money and build organizations in the early states,” said Emmett H. Buell, professor of political science at Denison University. “She hasn’t done the groundwork. She’s probably not ready for a presidential campaign, and if she got out there and performed badly it would devastate any chance for her in the future.” … “People are lining up their commitments. The longer it goes on, the harder it would be to disengage people,” said Donald Robinson, professor of government at Smith College. Robinson does not agree, however, that it's too late for Clinton to enter the contest. … There is no deadline to be on the ballot in the Iowa caucus, but for many other states the deadlines are rapidly approaching. ….Experts say the longer Clinton denies she will make a bid, the sooner Democrats are going to have to accept her decision.” (10/13/2003)

… A new book is out, “Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years – Ex-Clinton aides on Clinton,” written by National Review editor Rich Lowry. And as Mr. Lowry so aptly states in his column (today’s NRO.com) this book is about when the spinning… stops. Excerpts: “Sometimes the spinning stops. That's what I learned in the course of writing Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. I talked to a couple dozen former Clinton officials. I talked to as many as would talk, in any way that would win their cooperation; I talked to them on-the-record, off-the-record, and on-background with the agreement they could look over any quotes I'd use. I talked to spinners and wonks and speechwriters and friends. And there were flashes of real forthrightness. If you think Clinton is a weak person, who made excuses for himself, and defeated Al Gore, and couldn't make a decision, and brought out-of-their-depth rank amateurs to the making of foreign policy, and had a pointless second term, and fundamentally misunderstood how to respond to the terror threat — and so on: You get the idea — you might be surprised that former Clinton officials agree with you. What appears below is hardly the sum total of all that I was told, but it is telling. There is only so much that can be said on behalf of a failed president; eventually reality intrudes and the obvious cannot be denied. Here, then, is some of what former Clinton officials say about Clinton:

·        Bernie Nussbaum, former Clinton White House counsel, on Clinton's weakness: "The problem was Clinton's weakness in response to all that criticism. His mother, in her autobiography, talks of how, if there's a room of 100 people, and 99 of them like him, he'll spend all his time with that one person, trying to win him over. It's a dangerous prescription for leadership. But trying to get everyone to like him is an essential part of his personality."

·        Mickey Kantor, former Clinton secretary of commerce and trade representative, on the Monica scandal: "It's his own fault. No one did this to him. He did it to himself. No one brought this on him except himself."

·        Elaine Kamarck, former Clinton domestic-policy adviser and Gore aide, on the 2000 election: "Clinton sort of softened up the environment for Gore to be cast as someone who wasn't genuine. Nobody ever thought that Gore had Clinton's exact problems; but they were willing to think that since Clinton was a sleazy guy, there was probably something sleazy with Gore, too."

·        Don Baer, former Clinton communications secretary, on Clinton's lax decision-making: "I think he wanted to understand the various sides of issues before he came down hard on them.... It may be that the process of doing that, at the end of the day, required too much time and too much lack of discipline to really focus himself and his administration."

·        Richard Holbrooke, former top Clinton diplomat, on how Clinton and the administration were intimidated by then-Joint Chief of Staff Colin Powell: "Powell overwhelmed most of the new administration. They were children in his eyes, and he was an awesome world figure in theirs."

·        Dick Morris, former Clinton pollster, on Clinton's wasted second term: "I believe that Bill Clinton totally and completely wasted his second term. Partially due to his laziness in 1997, in 1998 he was totally tanked up by Monica, and in 1999 and 2000 his entire presidency was devoted to the single goal of getting his wife elected to the Senate."

·        Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary, on Clinton's wasted second term: "[T]here wasn't very much political capital left in the second administration — the second term — for new initiatives."

·        Jim Woolsey, former Clinton CIA director, on Clinton's 1993 cruise-missile attack in response to an Iraqi assassination attempt against former President Bush: "After a while, they fired a couple dozen cruise missiles into an empty building in the middle of the night, which is a sufficiently weak response to be almost laughable."

·        Eric Holder, former Clinton deputy attorney general, on the flaccid, law-enforcement response to terrorism: "Ultimately the mistake was the response. We put it in the hands of the FBI and the Justice Department, when it should have been in the hands of the Defense Department, because Bin Laden was more than the equivalent of a Muslim mob guy."

·        Alice Rivlin, former Clinton budget director, on Clinton abandoning deficit reduction after his 1994 congressional defeat: "The president lost his nerve a bit on deficit reduction...and that was a very discouraging period for those of us who thought it was really important."

·        Donna Shalala, former Clinton Health and Human Services director, on the folly of the Hillary health-care plan: "The program that was developed was too complex...you really had to go to the Hill with principles and start working your way through to get more coverage. A few minutes into it, we knew that. [But] the commitments had been made. Commitments to the First Lady, and to Ira Magaziner, and to a whole organizational scheme for doing it. It wasn't like the president wasn't told that's [a go-slow approach] what he should do."

·        Lanny Davis, former Clinton scandal lawyer, on how the Democrats first created "the politics of personal destruction" in the 1980s: "We used the scandal machinery. We abused it. And we set the precedent."

·        Howard Paster, former Clinton congressional lobbyist, on Clinton's lack of a guiding philosophy in decision-making: "I don't think the decisions were consistently ideological, because there were different players in every decision."

·        Tony Lake, former Clinton national-security adviser, on Somalia: "In Somalia, we inherited a bad mission and made it worse.... In truth, we were sloppy in how we adopted that [nation-building] as the mission."

·        Mickey Kantor on the 1990's economy: "No one should claim that what we did, what President Clinton did, created the eight most productive years in the history of the United States. No one should claim that."  (10/14/2003)

---

back to Hillary main page

top of page