Hillary? Vetted? Guess Again
Intriguing report in the L/A Times today about conversations between Barack Obama and an influential donor and “ardent” Clinton supporter in which Obama claims that Hillary is still under consideration for V.P. In promoting Hillary for V.P. to Obama, the donor, Jill Iscol, repeats a myth that has infected the minds of Hillary supporters since the primary campaign. Iscol is quoted as telling Obama, “…nobody has been vetted the way she has been vetted."
Like the myth the Clintons created that Hillary somehow received 18 million votes, a number now treated as accepted wisdom, the notion Hillary has been thoroughly vetted is absolute horse hockey.
Let’s take a look back. During the Clinton White House years the minor league scandals, travel gate, file gate, Rose law firm records, just to name a few, were overshadowed and lost in the shuffle of major league scandals and distractions like Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and impeachment.
At the very end of the Clinton administration, Bill granted pardons to all sorts of scuzzy characters, including Marc Rich and Hillary’s brother. Since leaving office, Bill has been associated with some questionable dealings with questionable individuals. ("Questionable" is a nice word for them.)
Should Barack Obama suddenly go insane and name Hillary to the ticket, does anyone imagine that Republican operatives and interest groups would not immediately begin dissecting everything from quick fortunes in cattle futures to shadowy oil deals in Kazakhstan? What about bank accounts in the Cayman Islands? What about the tax deduction the Clintons took for a donation to their own foundation. And speaking of the foundation, who are some of the other mysterious big dollar donors that Bill refuses to name?
How long would it take before more of the stains and smudges of 20 years of the Clintons’ soiled laundry would come spilling out? The Bosnia lie Hillary repeated over many weeks early in the primary season was only exposed as a lie this past spring. What else is buried?
Vetted? When you’re the Clintons, when you’ve been lying and cutting corners for most of your adult life, the vetting process never ends.
Like the myth the Clintons created that Hillary somehow received 18 million votes, a number now treated as accepted wisdom, the notion Hillary has been thoroughly vetted is absolute horse hockey.
Let’s take a look back. During the Clinton White House years the minor league scandals, travel gate, file gate, Rose law firm records, just to name a few, were overshadowed and lost in the shuffle of major league scandals and distractions like Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and impeachment.
At the very end of the Clinton administration, Bill granted pardons to all sorts of scuzzy characters, including Marc Rich and Hillary’s brother. Since leaving office, Bill has been associated with some questionable dealings with questionable individuals. ("Questionable" is a nice word for them.)
Should Barack Obama suddenly go insane and name Hillary to the ticket, does anyone imagine that Republican operatives and interest groups would not immediately begin dissecting everything from quick fortunes in cattle futures to shadowy oil deals in Kazakhstan? What about bank accounts in the Cayman Islands? What about the tax deduction the Clintons took for a donation to their own foundation. And speaking of the foundation, who are some of the other mysterious big dollar donors that Bill refuses to name?
How long would it take before more of the stains and smudges of 20 years of the Clintons’ soiled laundry would come spilling out? The Bosnia lie Hillary repeated over many weeks early in the primary season was only exposed as a lie this past spring. What else is buried?
Vetted? When you’re the Clintons, when you’ve been lying and cutting corners for most of your adult life, the vetting process never ends.
Advertisement
That was an interesting report from the LAT. Red'd.
July 12, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit channeling shit.
July 12, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev,
Please expound. Thanks in advance.
July 13, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try to expound, Liam. You see "channeling" is a method by which con artists also known as "mediums" pretend to meld minds with a "spirit" or "entity" (in this case, the entity being shit) in order to trick or defraud their "mark", (the person intended as the victim because of his/her gullibility, stupidity and lack of knowledge) while they pretend to provide usable information that only they possess by their ability to "channel" sources.
July 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev,
I have spent most of my morning trying to set up an account, so that I could respond to your comment about channeling shit. We the people are channeling the "Truth."
This woman has not been vetted! This woman is due in the California Courts in November for fraud.
July 13, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not interested in the truth, if you were you wouldn't be parroting this shit from the wingnuts.
The republican congress spent 100 million dollars investigating the Clintons entire lives and what did they find? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And you know why? Because nothing is there.
Reagan administration - 178 officials of the administration indicted for misfeasance and malfeasance in office. Clinton administration - zero, not one indictment.
July 13, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtless, Obama meant Hillary is “under consideration” the same way Michelle Obama is: Well, that is interesting... A snowball has a better chance in hell than Hillary has.
July 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary ended a while ago.
July 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eagleton was pulled, and Obama should be as well.
He used the left, and his word is good for nothing.
July 12, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, the left used him. I'm 'the left'; I should know.
July 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone just got own3d
:D
July 13, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS WAS A STRANGE RESPONSE
July 13, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the service of historical accurate, Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton was a vice-presidential pick. During his vetting, it was disclosed that he had received therapy for depression which included electro-shock therapy. At that time, admitting to any mental health issues -- in any line of work -- was considered extremely damaging and disqualifying. Eagleton had tried to keep his mental health issue a secret (given the times, who could blame him?) but when it was revealed, the concern was the Republicans would have destroyed him by suggesting he might "flip out" and push the "red button," launching a nuclear attack.
There is a huge difference in changing VP selections versus "overthrowing" the Democratic nominee.
July 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was extensively covered here two months ago. There's nothing wrong with giving to your own foundation and taking a deduction for doing so. That's how foundations get started.
July 12, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely. Bill Clinton turns out to be an excellent former president who runs a foundation that's done more good for AIDs victims, to name just one cause, than similar efforts by billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet but lets, by all means, concentrate on "shadowy" oil deals that Clinton didn't have anything to do with, on his "questionable" friends (Bill should submit lists of potential friends to Howard Dean for approval from now on) and of 8 year old pardons.
Some people are just desperate for the Clintons to be bad, I guess.
July 13, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
They just can't stand it...
July 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 13, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't have my in the post above.
July 13, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is, didn't have my (yawn) in the posts above!
July 13, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Senator Obama actually said what is being reported, there are only two possibilities:
1) Obama is manipulating a Clinton supporter in order to gain advantage, the type of maneuver fanatics here regularly ascribe to the Clintons, falling under the category "will say or do anything to win." By their reasoning this would make him a "monster."
2) Senator Clinton is not the monster that the Republicans and the hateful contingent of fanatics here have painted her as. Senator Obama knows for example that 'travel gate" is a phony scandal trumped up by the Republicans and a compliant media. Senator Obama knows that the Republican's spent 70 million investigating the Clintons and still could not touch them.
I subscribe to the second option. But Clinton haters here have to make up their own minds. It will be difficult. When you're a Clinton hater at TPM, when you've been cutting corners with the truth for months in order to turn Senator Clinton into a cartoon villain, the hatred never ends.
July 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how suggesting that they aren't yet fully vetted--that vetting is an ongoing process--counts as "hating" the Clintons. Politics would be so much easier without the superlatives.
That said, we DO know that the Clintons swore that if Obama got the most votes/superdelegates/states, they'd FULLY support him... and that "full" support has looked a little thin to me, especially from Former President Clinton. So there's something to consider in the vetting process as well. Especially if you're Obama.
July 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's very thin - Clinton hasn't been walking around with a sandwich board saying "ELECT OBAMA" for the last month. He just can't get in the spirit, I suppose.
July 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What should be said of either of the Clintons is that they are better equipped to handle the vetting process.
They simply play by the old rules:
1) Admit Nothing!
2) Deny Everything!
3) Demand Evidence!
The Clintons have another level:
4) Make excuses (plural), for every instance - something will explain it away.
And when all of that fails to tire inquisitors, they have the ability to start over (1-4)at any point.
July 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine that, an American demanding evidence before he's convicted of something. What next, huh?
July 13, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as in the Bosnia case, the media will go away eventually.
July 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks the Clintons have not been fully vetted, and lists "travel gate" as an example, is not operating on a factual basis. You have got to hate someone to smear them in that manner.
As to whether the Clintons have "fully supported" Obama, and in particular whether President Clinton's every word and feeling lives up to what we think it should be, let us convene a meeting of the Inner Party, and call in the inquisitors, to better probe the depths of their souls until we are satisfied that they have lived up to our standard of love for Big Brother.
July 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink