Known Quantity

I have to say that I find the idea that Hillary Clinton has been "vetted" and thus we can expect "no surprises" in terms of damaging campaign information to be pretty unconvincing. For one thing, public opinion of HIllary Clinton has bounced around a fair amount over the past ten years and it could keep on bouncing.

But more to the point, this almost seems like a calculated effort to bait me in bringing up things I really don't want to bring up. Are we, after all, sure that there are no more "surprises" lurking in Bill Clinton's sex life? That everyone in America remembers the full details of Clinton's midnight pardons? There's tawdry BS to be dragged up on everyone -- she's no exception and shouldn't be pretending that she is.

Comments

I'm sure Bill has been clean as a whistle while he was living in NY and his wife was in DC. Clean as a whistle.

Posted by Ugh | December 14, 2007 3:20 PM

You can probably find out a lot of surprises if you surf over to your companion Andrew Sullivan's site.

He's one bad pantsuit away from ranting about her killing Vince Foster.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 14, 2007 3:22 PM

"There's tawdry BS to be dragged up on everyone.."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, let us in on one of your professed failings. Just one. A juicy one. Something involving sex, a trapeze and small animals preferably.

Posted by steve duncan | December 14, 2007 3:22 PM

"Clean as a whistle."

Well, cleaned a few whistles.

Posted by Bon vivant | December 14, 2007 3:34 PM

not to mention that "i am a known quantity" is perhaps the least inspiring political motto known to man. even by standards of campaign language, this is soul-crushingly bad.

obama: hope over cynicism!
edwards: i'll fight for you!
clinton: i'm a known quantity!

yikes.

Posted by bob | December 14, 2007 3:34 PM

I've made a similar but slightly different argument--not that there are 'no surprises' as such, but that any new revelations will tend to be viewed through the prism of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (because while not everyone is familiar with every detail of the scandals, we're all too familiar with the pathological hatred some people have toward the Clintons).

A more solid argument would be that she can take a punch and come back from it; that, I think, is indisputable. That's also an unknown quantity for Edwards and Obama (and what I've seen from Edwards is less than encouraging). I think her ceiling may be lower than either Edwards' or Obama's, but her floor is a lot higher.

In any case, I'm not sure any of these arguments is a great reason to support her; I think they're more reasons not to not support her (that is, they're rebuttals to negative arguments rather than positive arguments in themselves).

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 14, 2007 3:38 PM

Hillary Clinton is the right's Emmanuel Goldstein. They don't need any "facts" or "reasons" to get in their way of a good reason to pour out their hate.

I'm sure, if Hillary is the eventual nominee, we'll see a rehashing of every issue of the 90s (travelgate, Vince Foster, White Water, drug running, Bill is both gay and a hetero sex maniac, etc) as well as a few new ones. And all of those issues will be raised by "serious" commentators on national television in the guise of "concern" and "horse race politics".

Posted by ben | December 14, 2007 4:00 PM

This is a ridiculous post.

Simply idiotic.

Are you REALLY doubting the fact that there are chasms between the vetting Clinton has been through and what the others have?

Sheesh.

Stupidest post I have read in quite a while.

Posted by Armando | December 14, 2007 4:36 PM

The known quantities I keep thinking of are NAFTA, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Welfare Reform, DMCA, Desert Fox.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 14, 2007 4:37 PM

No one but the suits at WalMart have cared what Armando says since 2005.

Posted by Armando Blows | December 14, 2007 4:39 PM

This is a very smart post, and one that Democrat votes should heed. I would bet very good money that if Hillary is the candidate, another Bill affair (since he left office) will come into public view. It's unfair, and shouldn't be anyone else's business, but it probably will.

What would be the consequences of such a revelation? It would destroy Hillary's well-deserved reputation for "toughness." When she stayed with Bill after Monica, she (mostly) earned points from the public for loyalty. However, if another post-Monica affair comes out, she looks less like a loyal wife than a sap. A weak woman who can't stand up to her man...let alone the terrorists. Against a "family man" candidate like Romney or Huckabee, this would be an even greater liability.

If she's not "more electable" than Edwards or Obama (and she's not), why would anyone vote for her?

Posted by Jacob | December 14, 2007 4:45 PM

If Hillary is allegedly so battle tested and electable, why is she the one who's stumbling so badly? Seems to me Obama has won every skirmish.

Given that Hillary is using the GOP slime machine, Obama's performance against her to date indicates he'll stand up well to whatever the GOP tries to pull. It's Hillary with the electability issues and always has been.

Posted by John Y. | December 14, 2007 4:47 PM

There's tawdry BS to be dragged up on everyone -- she's no exception and shouldn't be pretending that she is.

Not to mention, why should we assume that the GOP would stick to *true* stuff, or anything they can prove?

It doesn't matter how empty your closet is when the other side can and will just make shit up...

Posted by McKingford | December 14, 2007 5:09 PM

Are you REALLY doubting the fact that there are chasms between the vetting Clinton has been through and what the others have? Sheesh.

What Armando said. I mean, sure, anything's possible. The question is, what is likely? Or, what is more likely? Unknown shit being dredged up against a candidate who's been in the Senate for three years and is on his first national run seems to me more plausible than, um, the same happening to the most thoroughly vetted candidate in American fucking history. Or in global history.

I think if you don't like her politics or positions, you shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. But if you're okay with that part, and you're dithering about whom to support, I think the "thorough vetting" issue is at least worth considering.

Posted by Jasper | December 14, 2007 5:29 PM

I think the "thorough vetting" issue is at least worth considering.

This assumes something "fair" about oppo research. One thing the GOP has shown quite clearly is a willingness - nay, an eagerness - to be entirely unconstrained by the facts. That being the case, it doesn't matter if Clinton's closet is fully open and her skeletons picked clean.

Just look at what they did to John Kerry - they turned his war heroism on its head. Not a million years worth of vetting could have prevented or predicted that...

Posted by McKingford | December 14, 2007 5:36 PM

Ah, the vetting that she has been through. After the Republicans distribute videos of Obama shooting heroin with his cousin Saddam and captive white girls, 51% of Americans will hate him. Whereas Clinton is a safer bet because only 50% already hate her.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 14, 2007 6:07 PM

Are you REALLY doubting the fact that there are chasms between the vetting Clinton has been through and what the others have? Sheesh.

Well, yes. Hillary! has been given a big pass in not having to document her claims of being totally different than any other spouse in a Governor's mansion or the White House - a Co-Governor and Co-President. Which is the basis of her presumed legitimacy and supposed vast executive experience.

In a different situation, like the wife of a deceased CEO or General asking to be appointed to their husbands position because THEY were in on all major decisions their ex made - you would expect that they would be asked to show the decision-shaping memos with their spousal asses on the routing. The listing of them on the official minutes of critical meetings where major events were decided upon.

There is no such documentation of Hillary! All the memos, all the notes of her Co-this'nthat are barred from scrutiny by Bill Clinton and the Presidential Records Act, which delays release of his AND FAMILY members paper trail for decades.

Surprises may be in order because the media that covered for her has slowly began looking at her past. Her 1st 3 jobs in Arkansas came from Bill. She had failed the DC Bar exam and did little or no litigating at Rose Law, but was made a full partner 2 years after she was ushered into her new office after Bill was elected. Her "job" it seems, was far away from the Court, getting on Boards with help of Bill and her "professional woman's network" in order to steer business from those dealing with Arkansas Gov't to Rose Law.

After all the scrutiny, it was a surprise that the press never learned she failed her DC Bar, lost DC jobs she had lined up, and had to slum down to Arkansas. It was a surprise to only learn long after all the scandal flaps and the Clintons leaving office just how little actual work her job at Rose entailed and how she avoided any real time as a lawyer in court.

So are there surprises in the papers under Bill Clinton's lock and key? I'd bet on it. Likely major, defining decisions that are what is remembered about Clinton's time abound without the Co-Governor and Co-President having any involvement in them. I see her in staffing, in the war room, in charge of qushing "bimbo eruptions" and enforcing Clintonista loyalty. Childrens issues. And her health care fiasco. But not at meetings or on memo routings on the other 90% of critical domestic and foreign matters Clinton handled.

My fear is she is the Pantsuited Potemkin. That her vast leadership, "best 100 lawyers in the country" mind, and executive success are all a facade - and her actual hands on executive experience is more analogous to young Obama's than Bill Clinton's.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 14, 2007 6:17 PM

Just look at what they did to John Kerry - they turned his war heroism on its head. Not a million years worth of vetting could have prevented or predicted that...
Posted by McKingford

No, the Democrats assumed a fistful of medals, which he didn't throw away after all...would immunize Kerry from his slime jobbing the troops and consorting with the N Vietnmese in Paris.

The medals did not shield him from Vietnam era Vets who hated John Kerry for decades. Nor from his peer officers, most who detested him long before he was toasting VC in France or giving his our GIs were Ghenjis Kaaahhhhns speeches. The medals themselves, notably two of his purple hearts were questioned, as was the nature of his Discharge being lower than "honorable" classification.

Any decent vetting of Kerry would have easily uncovered just how hated he was by the bulk of Vietnam Veterans, non-Vietnam Vets, and his peer officers. It just wasn't a good vetting. It was done by Lefties who never served in the military and don't understand it. (The same people that thought reg military Vets would back them in trashing any Vet who served in the Guard or the Reserves as a "coward in a treacherously dangerous F-102 fighter jet who ducked real danger like Bush". When the opposite is the case. Any Vet from that era knows Bush was in more danger flying that thing doing Soviet bomber, Cuban flight intercepts in the Gulf than the average draftee soldier was serving in 'Nam)

Posted by Chris Ford | December 14, 2007 6:50 PM

Shorter Chris Ford: Regular vets are as dumb and Republican as the Swift Boaters.

Big surprise.

As for Bill - OF COURSE he's banging 18-year-old models all over the place. Hillary doesn't give a shit because she needs him for credibility.

Anybody actually DOUBT that?

Anybody?

The Republicans are ALREADY spreading rumors that she was sleeping with female Black Panthers back in California in the early days. What more can you expect during the campaign?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 14, 2007 7:04 PM

What about her time in the Senate?

Posted by Matt Stoller | December 14, 2007 7:40 PM

I guess everyone's forgetting that $60 million Ken Starr spent trying to find some dirt on Clinton.

I'll pick Door #2- they'll just lie about her. Or anyone else who runs for president on the Democratic ticket.

Posted by serial catowner | December 14, 2007 7:46 PM

Clinton is actually one of the least vetted major candidates in memory. That is because Democrats have built a extraordinarily obtuse, protective psychic wall around the Clintons, a holdover from the fierce siege defense of the impeachment days, reflexively beating back each and every little adversion to the events of the 90's as a "Republican talking point" or a full blown wave of rampant Ken Starrism. If there is indeed such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the right, there is also such a thing as Clinton Kneejerk Denial Syndrome on the left. The area where we know all the worrisome action is has been declared entirely off limits by the collective motherly impulses of the Democratic electorate. No "vetting" at all has taken place. But we know that area is not going to be off limits during the general election. My hope is that a majority of Democrats have now come to their senses and are increasingly determined to prevent this disaster waiting to happen.

That said, what the Clintons are trying to do with this speech is goad someone in the Obama campaign into alluding to some one of those nasty tidbits, so they can then attack Obama for hypocrisy, and declare the sides even on the cocaine thing.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 14, 2007 7:51 PM

This assumes something "fair" about oppo research. One thing the GOP has shown quite clearly is a willingness - nay, an eagerness - to be entirely unconstrained by the facts. That being the case, it doesn't matter if Clinton's closet is fully open and her skeletons picked clean.

Of course it matters. False accusations are easier to rebut or disprove. The fact that Kerry couldn't/didn't fight back effectively doesn't mean the Clintons won't. Believe me, they will.

Clinton is actually one of the least vetted major candidates in memory.

Uh-huh. And Huckabee is one of the most secular candidates in memory.

Posted by Jasper | December 14, 2007 8:58 PM

It's like she's baiting her opponents to bring up things like the midnight pardons and the rumors that Marc Rich paid extraordinarily large bribes to/through Roger Clinton.
I suspect the rumors are inaccurate, if not entirely false. But the correct response to Hillary's "argument" is Huh? Hillary's the most electable? No dirt to find? Really? Are my fellow Democrats really that stupid? Will we fall for this?

Posted by Pedro | December 14, 2007 10:48 PM

@Armando. Truth be told, it is going on; we know its going on it's just no one is talking about it. That is not vetting, that is hoping. Hoping that no one talks about it, but Clinton's opponent no doubt will. Here's the missing objective correlative of this whole vetting nonsense: Hillary says watch out they will talk about his drug use and Obama is saying watch out, they will... what? Nothing. He hasn't said anything, he could, hell, it's an open secret about Bill. But who cares and that's not the point. Being President is more than just being a person who people are unwilling to say surprising things about, being the President is about moral authority of leadership--or more lately its absence. So Clinton stands beneath an I-beam suspended by piano wire when she talks about being "vetted." "Sword of Damocles" has too graceful a connotation for what she will confront. Before she and Penn started their "Obama is a coke whore meme," I would have stuck up for her when the well-paid political consultants came with their sharp knives, but it's hard to stick up for her now; why does that matter? Because Republicans don't have the burden of persuading Democrats--Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes! She has the burden of persuading people to vote FOR her. Good luck. Everyone I know is staying home because even if she wins what do we get: Mark Penn. No thanks.

Posted by JC | December 14, 2007 11:27 PM

I'm curious, what exactly are they going to find? I say this not because I am sure there's something, but because I find it hard to believe that there are still things they haven't discovered. Some have suggested that Bill's been having another affair, while someone else said that Marc Rich bribed them through Roger Clinton. (I'd like proof of both, by the way.) Do you think anything like that will come out, Matt?

None of this is to suggest that she's perfectly clean or that the Republicans won't take a library fine from 1965 and turn it into her pissing on George Washington's grave with bin Laden, but really, what are they going to find? And if they simply attack her, won't the likely go overboard like they usually do, which will probably benefit her in the end?

"Any Vet from that era knows Bush was in more danger flying that thing doing Soviet bomber, Cuban flight intercepts in the Gulf than the average draftee soldier was serving in 'Nam)"

Bush really did stuff like that in the NG?

Posted by Brian | December 14, 2007 11:59 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

The trouble with raising this kind of thing is that you get lumped with the loons at the WSJ who pulished 18 volumes on Whitewater.

And I don't think she's corrupt in any serious way - far as I can tell this is just how backs got scratched in Little Rock. But if you know anything about how this kind of trading works, her story is not plausible.

Posted by little bird | December 15, 2007 3:11 AM

This is a silly post. Anti-Clintonistas will forever finds something bad. Pro-Obamists will push their choice. No contest. It is so easy to go anti-Clinton that one wonders if the Right needs to go after any Democratic nominee. After all the Left is doing their dirty work for them. Look to a wounded winner then getting a working over by the wingnuts. We eat our own with glee because we are so filled with a sense of our own principled and blameless lives.

Posted by Alan | December 15, 2007 8:43 AM

Any Vet from that era knows Bush was in more danger flying that thing doing Soviet bomber, Cuban flight intercepts in the Gulf than the average draftee soldier was serving in 'Nam)"
Bush really did stuff like that in the NG?
Posted by Brian

Yeah, he was scrambled on a few occasions to intercept Soviet naval air patrol bombers out of Cuba, but the Florida Guard always got there 1st. That was his primary mission, though. Maintain US control of the Gulf as the Cold war went on outside of the Vietnam business. Just as we maintained huge manpower in Europe, particularly in Germany. The typical Vietnam-era draftee never saw Vietnam.

The F-102 was considered one of the most dangerous, tricky planes to fly the US fielded. That is the strange part about Bush - he was a very articulate governor, and he was clearly no idiot if he was a high-rated fighter pilot. Yet he seemed to have lost those skills in the Presidency. Democrats may hate him, but Republicans are incredibly disappointed. He was almost as bad as Carter in the damages he inflicted on the country, and out-did Carter in creating a fiscal mess it will take years of pain and sacrifice to fix. (with the fatcats he and the Clintons enabled hopefully paying the most and feeling the most pain.)

Posted by Chris Ford | December 15, 2007 1:46 PM