Why are you making me hurt you?

[Ta-Nehisi]

Man, this is Carville (courtesy of The Jed Report) blaming the Obama campaign, and how they played the assassination story, for Hillary potentially pushing this race past June 3rd. Incredible. I was in college for most of the 90s doing the sort of illicit, dumb things that people in college do. But I read a newspaper now and again. Were these guys always this dastardly? I know others have claimed that they were, but does it says something about progressives that we backed people like this?

Comments

I don't know why you backed him. This guy was always a piece of shit.

Posted by TH | May 29, 2008 11:03 AM

Well, it definitely says that after losing three elections in a row the members of a political party start to value the simple act of winning a lot more. Even just a few years ago you heard a lot more unvarnished praise from progressives for Clinton despite his mediocre record of governing as a progressive.

Posted by LittleMac | May 29, 2008 11:04 AM

The Clintons have been lucky that their politcal adversaries during the 90's were even more vile than themselves. People had enough of the 12 years of Reagan-Bush and hated the Gingrich-led Congress, so they said 'Fuck it, I guess Clinton will have to do.' I think it's that simple.

Posted by Waingro | May 29, 2008 11:09 AM

It does say something about progressives that we backed these guys before.

But it says even more about progressives that, when presented with a better, valid alternative in Senator Obama, we rejected the Carvilles of the world.

Obama in 2008.

Posted by Jim Crozier | May 29, 2008 11:09 AM

Carville, in the above interview, was simply jumping around.

I wouldn't take him seriously.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | May 29, 2008 11:16 AM

Whats telling is you somehow think "Harry and Louise" Obama is somehow radically different. He isn't. And if you think Whitewater was fun just wait until the endless investigation into Tony Rezko.

Posted by Rob | May 29, 2008 11:17 AM

LM is right. So many times I hear or read that Bill Clinton was great because he was a two-term winner. I never hear Republicans say that about Reagan.

Clinton had a awful record as a progressive. Passing Nafta without any concession on progressive issues. Welfare reform leaving the poorest in greater poverty. And the governance debacle on the health care proposal.

I once thought mandatory leave act was a decent accomplishment by Clinton but then learned it'd been proposed by Congress by Clinton's inauguration.

Posted by asl | May 29, 2008 11:17 AM

You're right, Jim. I've thought that ever since Russert began the 'Obama is the nominee' media narrative, the Clintons would merely be a pitiful, desperate group without much consequence to the general. I still think that and am hopeful that I'm right.

Posted by asl | May 29, 2008 11:24 AM

You may not recall, but there wasn't largely functional progressive infrastructure until after 2004, so it wasn't as if there were progressives making collective choices about candidates during the 90's. Liberals in general backed Bill Clinton because he was evidently the best available, and because getting impeached over a blowjob is simply ridiculous. Some liberals refused to back Clinton because he wasn't liberal enough, which unfortunately opened the door to Nader in 2000.

And recall that Bill Clinton governed better than Reagan or Bush I. He was probably the best president since JFK. But that's not saying much. Hopefully Obama will pleasantly surprise us and manage to get everything he's saying he wants to do through congress. Obama's cabinet will certainly be more interesting than any since JFK.

Posted by Shaz | May 29, 2008 11:25 AM

Frankly, I'm not sure how the Obama campaign could have given a more reasonable and empathetic response to the Clintons. He even talked about how difficult it is to be quoted 24 hours a day for months at a time without saying something carless. This is insane. But not surprising.

Posted by Ted2 | May 29, 2008 11:25 AM

carville was always this dumb.

but the notion that bill clinton was some enemy of progressivism and really, why didn't we just let the slimeball get impeached is even dumber.

Posted by howard | May 29, 2008 11:26 AM

Carville has always been sort of dastardly, especially in private, but I think it has become much more public during this primary battle. He's a big jerk -- made worse by the fact that his traingulation strategy was completely unadaptable to today's political climate and he shut himself off to change. As he's grown increasingly irrelevant he's become more snipey.

Remember how cruel he was to Dean about Dean's 50 State strategy? That the Dems could NEVER succeed with such a plan -- argh. I hate James Carville.

Posted by CHoward | May 29, 2008 11:30 AM

Clinton has the superior moral position on Michigan and Florida

I am still flabergasted by such statements even though I should have grown by thick skin by now. He also got to promulgate the "popular vote" argument without a peep from the interviewer. What are they trying to accomplish? I would love to stop harping about the Clinton campaign. But sheeesh.

Posted by donut | May 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Stop whining, Matthew.

At some point, you stop trying to negotiate with your enemy and you destroy him.

It's time for Obama to point a fucking gun at the head of the Democratic leadership and give them a choice: Discard Hillary and back him in the fight against McCain.

Otherwise, Obama and his supporters will turn the Democratic Party into a pile of goddamm ashes. From which there will be NO rebirth.

These stupid cocksuckers have killed 3000 of our people for a blowjob, have killed another 4000 for several Million dollars from Israeli Haim Saban , and have brought untold misery and poverty down onto millions of grassroots Democratic voters just for their own self-serving ends.

Why work with such people? Destroy them.
Howard Dean should have done the job 4 years ago.
I myself in the past have noted that Obama should treat Hillary with kid gloves to preserve party unity after Obama is given the nomination.

But it looks now like its time for plan B. Time to wage a REAL campaign against this bitch.

Will that give McCain the election? Probably not. Because a lot of people support the Republicans only because they despise some of the two-faced whores in the Democratic leadership. Show some integrity, show America the REAL Clintons --the way Scott McCellan is showing the country SOME of the Real Bush -- and you might gain more than you will loose.

Some radical feminists will screech? Fuck them. Destroy the Democratic Party --because it's no longer true to its values -- and those bitches will be in the political equivalent of a rural trailer within three years. Barefoot, pregnant and sporting a black eye. Same goes for the Israeli Lobby after we get done with it. Black mold doesn't stand up well to sunlight.

Time to show the iron fist in the velvet glove, man. This country is aching for a new party.

Posted by Don Williams | May 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Who played the foil to the Clintons?

In the 90's, their foil was a Republican Party that was foaming at the mouth to catch the Clintons in a scandal. They were hypocrites, Christianists, arrogant, obnoxious. And they blew so many scandals way out of proportion that they became the party that cried Wolf.

Fast-forward to today. The foil for the Clintons is Barack Obama, the most honest, classy, inspirational, transformative, post-ideology candidate we've ever seen.

The foil changed and the scales fell from our eyes.

Posted by Muzz | May 29, 2008 11:38 AM

muzz, you have just put your finger on why i am a tepid obama supporter at best: post-ideology? and you think that's good?

Posted by howard | May 29, 2008 11:40 AM

Don Williams,
I have to be honest with you, that post was awesome and exactly the kind of attitude that the Democrats need more of. BUT, let's wait until after this supposed deluge of Super D's before we have to resort to this. No?

Posted by Doug G. | May 29, 2008 11:44 AM

Re Shaz's comment "Liberals in general backed Bill Clinton because he was evidently the best available, and because getting impeached over a blowjob is simply ridiculous "
----------------
Actually, the impeachment was for lying during judicial proceedings while under oath.

I --and most of the country --didn't care if Bill Clinton fucked goats. I didn't even care about him lying under oath.

What I cared about was that his irresponsibility gave the Republicans the opportunity to tie the Executive Branch up in knots for two years while something called Al Qaeda sharpened their knives.
The fact his National Security Advisor infiltrated the National Archives, illegally stole classified documents and destroyed them only underlines that point.

What I cared about was that Bill Clinton's irresponsibility gave us 8 years of George Bush. What I cared about is that it is the poor, the sick, the elderly and the most unfortunate among us who have ALWAYS picked up the bill for the Clintons.

If you invited them into you home, they would enjoy your food, drink all your alcohol, screw your teenage daughter and then burn the fucking place to ground. Saunder off looking for a new party as the roof collapsed behind them

Posted by Don Williams | May 29, 2008 11:48 AM

Hillary as VP?

Do you really want to endure 4 YEARS of this shit?

Posted by Don Williams | May 29, 2008 11:57 AM

It would be interesting to chart the decline and fall of James Carville. I think it began with his stint in that movie "Our brand is crisis." It would move on to his insistence on being antagonistic towards Dean and the new Democratic Party order despite the fact that it had overwhelming support from the party faithful. This was capped off by his spoken desire to prod Harold Ford to challenge Dean for the party Chairmanship. It concludes with his status as one of the dead enders in the Clinton campaign.

Too bad; I kinda liked him when he was sane.

Posted by CJ | May 29, 2008 12:02 PM

howard:

"muzz, you have just put your finger on why i am a tepid obama supporter at best: post-ideology? and you think that's good?"

How can one get past ideology? You can't. Even "post-ideology" is an ideology. It's like the Federal Reserve Bank or US Supreme Court somehow being "beyond" politics.

Whoever thought Clinton was progressive was a moron and a sucker. He had a mixed record at best. If Hillary has any class left in her, she'll bow out in early June and the Clinton era will end. If not, it will end in late June, either way, thank you Barack Obama.

And people like howard underestimate the symbolism of having a black president, especially a good one, which Obama has a shot of being. Why is this I wonder? Spoiled white people? Smug cynics?

Krugman has lost his mind. In his recent column he worries that Obama will blow the election which should be a cake walk. Talk about sour grapes.

Posted by Peter K. | May 29, 2008 12:06 PM

I think Clinton was a great conservative president. Better than Reagan b/c he didn't have the foreign policy blunders like Iran contra and his recipe for economic success was far more insightful. But basically Clinton stripped down progressive programs to save money and accelerate legitimate economic growth (not just give it away to rich people which is what the Republicans do). It didn't really help the poor, but he didn't go so overboard that the infrastructure suffered. Just a little bit of less wellfare, more free trade, yeah some people get screwed but overall the economy is better. This is what the Republicans would claim to represent (at their best). What they actually represent, of course, is: strip mine the economy and deliver the proceeds to your richest backers. I don't even think the top 1% benefit in the long run under Republican rule.

At the end of the day, a decent conservative governor isn't so bad. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible. It's just pathetic that as a country we moved so far to the right that the best president of the last 30 years was a conservative democrat. But now we might be ready to elect an actual liberal.

Posted by mpowell | May 29, 2008 12:11 PM

I can't get that angry at James Carville -- he wouldn't act without Hillary's approval.

Plus, Carville is married to Mary Matalin.

Which ranks right up there with being stuck in the Eighth Circle (Bolgia 5) of Hell.

Posted by Don Williams | May 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Rob, you're going to have to find a new hobby horse. Obama's been repeatedly cleared of any wrongdoing in that trial. Most of the stuff Rezko did that was problematic was way after Rezko and Obama were close (the Rezko allegations primarily date to the Rod Blago. administration, which started in 2001).

Posted by dbt | May 29, 2008 12:27 PM

But man, this has ALWAYS been Clinton's argument. This is exactly what she means when she talks about her "toughness" and "politically experience." The fact that she can throw down in these ugly-ass battles and get just as gross and slimy as Karl Rove has always been a major part of her supposed appeal.

Posted by NS | May 29, 2008 12:30 PM

Ta-Nehisi,

I don't know, I went to college in the nineties too and I remember the Clintonites getting pretty nasty during the impeachment fiasco. I was of the "come clean and let's move on" school, but the degree to which they were willing to trash Monica Lewinisky, an unwitting pawn, and the speed with which they invoked executive privilege was troubling. Not Bush-level troubling, but it seemed to demonstrate that the Clintons always put themselves over country. Had Bill come clean that spring, we would not have lost all summer and fall of 1998, and if Republicans had gone forward on impeachment, Dems would be able to run against them more openly, instead of lamely defending all of Clinton's stonewalling.

I realize that there's a decent counter-argument that had Clinton not had his hands tied all during 1998, he would have passed more centrist Dick-Morris-approved bullshit, so we should be thankful. Still, I think the overall effect of the Clintons drawing out the Monica-gate scandal was to kneecap Al Gore fro 2000.

Posted by Philly | May 29, 2008 12:59 PM

let's wait until after this supposed deluge of Super D's before we have to resort to this. No?

But isn't that the point, Doug G.? Obama is responsible for his own campaign, not take down the Clintons. That we sit around and hope for the SuperD's to decide this is pernicious in itself.

Posted by asl | May 29, 2008 1:15 PM

but the notion that bill clinton was some enemy of progressivism...is even dumber

Howard, what were Clinton's progressive achievements?

Posted by asl | May 29, 2008 1:18 PM

"... but does it says something about progressives that we backed people like this?"

Nobody ever backed Carville for anything. He is and has always been a political attack dog. He doesn't have policies or positions. He does or says anything he thinks will contribute to getting his people elected.

He has always done what he does knowing full well that he might be left hanging out to dry if he screws up. He's fine with that. It is not his purpose to be "backed".

I don't happen to prefer his choice of candidate, but if you don't want people like Carville on your side, get used to losing elections.

Posted by Njorl | May 29, 2008 1:24 PM

"Krugman has lost his mind. In his recent column he worries that Obama will blow the election which should be a cake walk."

What's even worse is he claims that the reason that Obama will lose is because not enough of Obama's supporters kissed Hillary Clinton's ass.

This idea he and many other Hillary partisans keep advancing, that somehow Hillary has been treated unfairly by Obama in this race, is completely in bizarro territory. Obama's kept the long knives sheathed far longer than maybe he should have, but he has unquestionably run the most gentle winning campaign I have ever seen.

Posted by brewmn | May 29, 2008 1:33 PM

Astroturf Axelrod is no boy scout and was most likely the source of the leak that destroyed Hull.

Obama is Clinton '92 so if you weren't happy with that administration you should be preparing to lobby for progressive policies beginning on November 5.

Posted by rye | May 29, 2008 1:33 PM

At the end of the day, a decent conservative governor isn't so bad. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible. It's just pathetic that as a country we moved so far to the right that the best president of the last 30 years was a conservative democrat.

What mpowell said.

James C is like a lot of political consultants - sleazy, willing to be amoral when that's what it takes. One doesn't want to talk about something one doesn't understand (ie someone else's marriage), but you do have to wonder what kind of 'progressive' could marry Mary Matilin. Could you do that, dear reader? And I'm not talking about her look or voice, etc. I mean her worldview, her ideology. Maybe she's sleazy and amoral like her husband, but I get the feeling she is takes the ideas of her ideology more seriously than does he. Could be wrong. I'm not saying he doesn't believe in any progressive ideas at all, I just get the feeling that his Rationalization Train is a lot longer. People like him care a lot about money and celebrity. Consequently other considerations can be 'massaged'.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 29, 2008 1:37 PM

You know, I used to say that James Carville reminded you of a crazy old uncle. Not any uncle I ever actually had but one I’m sure many did.

He did something heroic years ago, like kill a bunch of Nazis in WW2 and you’re thankful for that. But now he’s just really unpleasant to be around, (still calling African-Americans “coloreds”, reeking of gin and cheap cigars even if it’s noon and he hasn’t smoke or drank yet today) and you’re relived that you only have to see him for big family gathering during the holidays.

But now, even that kind of comparison is too good for Carville I think. And I actually bought his last book, the one that came out in early 2006, ugh!

Posted by Raindog | May 29, 2008 2:00 PM

Even if Obama is Clinton '92 things should be better for progressive policies. The Congress doesn't have as many fake Demcrats in it anymore, and the House and Senate numbers look really bad for the Republicans.

As for Carville, I'm with Njorl. Carville's the hatchet man who goes out there and does whatever it takes. What's the problem? Like Mark Shields always says, politics ain't beanbag.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 29, 2008 2:01 PM

The simple reasoning is these guys come to D.C. as idealists, and then live with the big money people and a lifestyle they too want to live. It's human to be corrupted, but Carville has taken cynicism to new levels marrying Mary (Cheney mouthpiece) Matalin, and then expecting all of us to take him seriously.

There is a shelf life to these operatives and the Clinton brand expired years ago.

Posted by jogger | May 29, 2008 2:10 PM

"Obama is Clinton '92 so if you weren't happy with that administration you should be preparing to lobby for progressive policies beginning on November 5."

I know! Or else Obama will write into the US constitution that universal health care is illegal, right???? Scary!!!

I remember Clinton in '92 flying back to Arkansas midcampaign to execute a mentally retarded black man to demonstrate he was tough on crime - remember Rodney King and the LA riots were the year before. And then you have Obama doing the Jay Z dust your shoulder signal.

The New York Times reported where he may have gotten that.

Posted by Peter K. | May 29, 2008 3:02 PM

Did you check to make sure the Jed Report didn't edit the clip before posting it?

Bit ironic that Jed is the inspiration for your musings on dastardly operatives and progressives keeping company with asshats.

Posted by cognitive dissonace as wisdom | May 29, 2008 3:07 PM

"Were these guys always this dastardly?"

YES.

Posted by dr.giraud | May 29, 2008 3:15 PM

Carville : Rove :: b : d

They're the same damned thing; they just point in opposit directions.

Posted by Andrew Lias | May 29, 2008 3:16 PM

I was in college in the 90s and I was not a fan of Clinton. First, he supported gays in the military until he was elected when he came up with the ridiculous Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Then, his treatment of Lani Guinier and Jocelyn Elder was awful. Finally, I still can't even think of Monica Lewinsky without feeling so sorry for what they did to her. She made a mistake when she was in her early 20s and these people tried to destroy her.

Posted by bperk | May 29, 2008 4:15 PM

I guess Carville has lost his mind because that was the most ridiculous bunch of claptrap I've seen in a while...

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Let's not be naive. Any operative running a presidential campaign is going to be corrupt. It doesn't matter progressive or conservative. It's all about winning, no matter how. You can't tell me there is any difference between Carville and Matalin. And that goes for Obama's people too. They will all do whatever - legal or illegal - to win. As long as they don't get caught.

Posted by Jymn | May 29, 2008 5:58 PM

It's time for them to fire up the "Clinton Party" and run independently.

They don't need to blow up the Democratic Party... just compete to win.

Has anyone polled a three-way General Election?

Lieberman did it to great effect.

The cheese stands alone.

Posted by mcdtracy | May 29, 2008 7:58 PM

As some people have noticed, Clinton is angling for new campaign T-shirt designs and making travel plans for beyond June 3rd.

Folks, she's going all the way. She's going to kneecap Obama if she has to have him assassinated.

And by the way, back when Nader was running? Somebody said, "I want to kill Ralph Nader!" And Hillary's response? "I think that's a great idea!" To which everyone then said, "That's off the record!"

In Her Mind She's Killed Before
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn05272008.html

Is Hillary scum? Check this out.

Bill Clinton and the Rich Women
http://www.counterpunch.com/

Fixers Indicated That Hillary Was a Key Player in the Marc Rich Pardon Deal

Money Quotes:

Despite her campaign’s ongoing slurs against Bill Richardson, the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Hillary Clinton probably feels like she has Puerto Rico, the final primary, in the bank. Those delegates were sown up nine years ago on August 16, 1999, when Bill Clinton issued commutations for 16 members of the FALN Puerto Rican nationalist group serving long sentences for robbery, bombings and sedition. That rare act of humanitarian intervention endeared the Clintons to many Puerto Ricans, obviating the sins committed by the administration at Vieques Island, which had been turned into a toxic bombing ground.

But if Hillary wants to claim credit for the FALN pardons (a strategic decision at the time, geared to helping her win a US senate seat in New York), she should also own up to her role in a much more problematic case, the midnight pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.

Hillary has never addressed her role in the Rich pardon. In fact, she’s rarely been asked her opinion on the free pass given to one of the world’s most wanted fugitives, a man who violated embargoes against Iran and South Africa and fled the country rather than face trial in what was billed as “the biggest tax evasion case in history.” The senator has variously said that she was “unaware” of the decision and “surprised” by it. When pressed, she merely cackles.

Even though 300 pages of core documents relating to the pardon decision remain under seal at the Clinton Library, a review of the available record tells a much different story. In fact, the Rich legal team viewed Hillary as a secret weapon, and as one door after another closed on their search for a pardon they focused more and more on invoking what Rich lawyer Robert Fink called the “HRC option...”

[Want to talk about the Clinton's "love" for "hardworking white Americans"? Read this part!]

"Even as he neared the top of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, Rich also didn’t see any reason to abandon his operations in the United States. In fact, his hand is seen orchestrating one of the most savage crackdowns on organized labor in recent decades. In 1989, Rich secretly acquired the controlling interest in a West Virginia-based company called Ravenswood Aluminum. Ravenswood was embroiled in a tumultuous battle between management and workers at the plant when in 1990, under Rich’s long-distance orders, the company tried to bust the union. On a bitterly cold night, a private security force arrived at the plant, set up armed guards at the gates and surveillance cameras around the perimeter of the facility, and locked out 1,700 workers, all members of the Steelworkers Union. Over the ensuing weeks, the armed guards repeatedly clashed with picketing union members, fogging the air with tear gas and beating skulls with their police clubs. Soon Rich made the call to hire permanent replacement workers, for less pay and reduced benefits. The lockout went on for two more years. 'It was a brutal affair,' says Dan Stidham, president of the Ravenswood union local at the time of the lockout. 'I’m still pretty upset with Clinton for pardoning that guy after all we went through...'"

Meanwhile, back in Lucerne, Rich was beginning to cultivate the Israeli government. He established the Rich Foundation in Tel Aviv, which would distribute more than $100 million to Israeli causes over the next decade. To oversee the foundation, Rich selected a former high-ranking Mossad official named Avner Azulay, whose ties to the intelligence agency probably never totally evaporated. Azulay was a useful conduit to Israel’s political elite. He was close to Yitzak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert. A decade later, Azulay would play a key role in securing Rich’s pardon from the Clintons.

Through Azulay, Rich offered his services to the Israeli government, especially the Mossad. Indeed, according to letters from Israeli officials, Rich played the role of a “Say-Ayon,” or unpaid asset of the Mossad. In fact, Rich was subsidizing Israeli intelligence operations. He financed numerous covert missions and allowed Mossad operatives to work covertly in his offices around the world.

With experience as an international spook now added to his C.V., Rich reached out through intermediaries to both the FBI and the CIA. He offered his services to both agencies in exchange for dropping the charges against him. The CIA’s response is unknown, but the FBI was intrigued and sent the request to the Justice Department, where it was quashed...

After discussions with White House aides Bruce Lindsey and Beth Nolan, Quinn sent out an email calling for a new approach: “It’s time to move on the GOI [Government of Israel] front but we have to get the calls initiated over there.”

Letters and calls soon flooded the White House from Israeli officials and high profile Jews, including Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Elie Weisel. In one way or another, each had received benefits from Rich or one of his foundations. A problem soon developed. When presented the opportunity to discuss presidential pardons with Clinton, many of these leaders, anxious perhaps to legitimize Israeli penetration of the U.S. government, choose to plead the case of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard instead of Rich.

The scene shifts to a crowded restaurant in Paris. It’s Valentine’s Day. Two men are having dinner and drinking wine. They know each other well. One man has just received a $100,000 contribution from the other man’s boss. The man on the receiving end of the money is Abe Foxman, and the financial gift was for his group the Anti-Defamation League. The man picking up the hefty dinner tab is Avner Azulay – though Marc Rich will soon reimburse him.

Rich has one last shot, Foxman advises. They need to get directly to Bill and Hillary. And the key to unlocking the inner doors of the White House, Foxman told Azulay, is Denise Rich. Foxman confided that he and Denise had flown together on Air Force II to the funeral of Yitzak Rabin.
There was just one problem. Denise Rich still loathed her husband.

Entreaties are made to Denise, now a New York socialite and successful songwriter, by Quinn and others on the Rich teams. Three times “Denise Rich declines to come to the rescue of her former husband.

Then suddenly, in November 2000, she agrees to help. What made her change her mind?

That remains open to speculation, but given Marc Rich’s history and Denise’s view that she was shortchanged in the divorce, it may well have involved a financial offering. This much is known. On November 16, Avner Azulay flies to New York and takes Denise to dinner. He pleads for her to back Rich’s pardon to her friends Bill and Hillary. Two days later Denise consents.

Denise calls her close friend Beth Dozoretz for help in the best way to handle the matter. Another rich Manhattan socialite, Dozoretz had been the finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dozoretz had contributed more than $1 million to Democratic coffers. Bill Clinton was the godfather of her daughter.

Dozoretz who, like Denise Rich, would later plead the Fifth at a Senate hearing in the matter, helped Rich craft her strategy. Almost immediately, a check for $25,000 was sent from Denise Rich’s account to the DNC. This was soon followed by Denise Rich’s first letter to the Clintons, imploring them to pardon her ex-husband. Dozoretz also helped Rich bundle a $450,000 contribution to the Clinton library fund. (A Democratic fundraiser told the New York Times in 2001 that Denise had also pledged another million in four installments over the next two years. This figure was disputed by Denise Rich. But the donor lists to the Clinton Foundation are kept secret.) In all, Denise Rich made at least $1.1 million in contributions to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary’s Senate campaign and PACs, and at least $450,000 to the Clinton foundation.

For her part, Dozoretz kicked in another million of her own money to the fund. This is the same library that now refuses to release more than 300 pages of Clinton’s records relating to the pardon. She later lavished gifts on the Clintons as they left the White House, including antique furniture for the new home and golf clubs for Bill.

As Dozoretz and Denise Rich plotted their strategy, Quinn and Azulay sought another opening. In a December 19, 2000, email to Quinn, Azulay emphasizes the importance of Hillary’s role in the affair. She has just been elected senator from New York, where Rich was indicted. If there was to be fallout, it might backfire on Hillary. She would need reassurance. Dozoretz and Denise would provide financial aid, but she might also need political cover. Azulay recommends Abraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset. “Burg is on very friendly terms with Hilary (sic) and knows POTUS from previous contacts.”

The next night there’s a party at the White House honoring Barbra Streisand, Quincy Jones and Maya Angelou. Dozoretz and Denise are invited, and Denise lands a plum seat at the presidential table. Denise is wearing a burgundy ball gown trimmed in fox fur. She eats little and talks less. After dinner, Denise espies Bill having an intimate conversation with Streisand. She rushes across the room, cuts in on Babs and whisks Bill away. She makes an impassioned plea for the ex-husband , who had humiliated her, stuffs a letter into Bill’s hand and whispers, “I could not bear it were I to learn you did not see my letter.”

When Denise arrives home, she makes a call to Lucerne. It’s the first time she has talked to Marc Rich since the divorce. She describes her meeting with Clinton. Her friends say she ended the conversation by telling Rich: “You owe me.”

A week later the Rich team is getting antsy. There’s still been no word on how Hillary feels. Rich’s New York attorney Robert Fink sends an email to Quinn: “Of all the options we discussed, the only one that seems to have real potential for making a difference is the Hillary option.”

Quinn, Dozoretz, Burg and, perhaps, Denise call Hillary’s people. They are told that the senator needs cover. According to a December 26 email from Azulay titled “Chuck Schumer”: “Hillary shall feel more at ease if she is joined by her elder sen. of NY, who also represents the Jewish population.”

Gershon Kekst leaps at the opportunity, firing an email to Fink looking for Schumer’s pressure points:

“Can Quinn tell us who is close enough to lean on Schumer?? I am willing to call him but have no real clout. Jack might be able to tell us who the top contributors are … maybe Bernard Schwartz??”

Bernard Schwartz was a good guess. The former CEO of Loral (a Friend of Bill and Marc Rich) was a top DNC contributor and had lavished money on both Schumer and Hillary. Schwartz also donated $1 million to the Clinton library fund.

But Quinn had been around Washington a long time. He knew enough not to trust Schumer, a famous media hog who was already showing signs of being jealous of the attention Hillary was getting. Quinn notes: “I have to believe that the contact with HRC can happen w/o him after all, we are not looking for a public show of support from her.”

Calls continue to flood the Clinton White House. The King of Spain. Sandy Berger. Ehud Barak.

Meanwhile, Denise and Beth are skiing in Aspen. Beth’s phone rings. It’s Bill Clinton. Clinton tells Dozoretz, “I want to do it and am trying to get around the White House counsel.” Keep praying, Bill told the women. He also let them know that Michael Milken wasn’t getting a pardon.

A few days later, the two women are back in Washington. It’s now January 19, 2001. Jack Quinn is sitting at a board meeting of Fanny Mae. He quietly types a message to Denise on his Blackberry. (It’s not known if he bills both clients for this hour of his time.) The text message urges Denise to make one last call to Bill. Quinn tells her not to “argue merits” but merely to explain to Clinton that “it is important to me personally.”

Though both women will later dispute it, the Secret Service logs show that the next afternoon at 5:30, Beth and Denise were admitted to the private quarters of the White House. This was Denise’s nineteenth visit to the White House. Beth had visited the White House 76 times in merely the last two years. The logs do not record when the women departed. This is the encounter that appears to have consummated the pardon.

At 2:30 in the morning on January 20, Clinton gets a call from his National Security Advisor. Marc Rich’s name has surfaced in an intelligence file in connection with an international arms smuggling network. Clinton calls Quinn. Quinn says the allegations are bogus. Bill turns to his staff, all of whom oppose the pardon that is now being signed. “Take Jack’s word,” Clinton snapped. Later Clinton will claim to have been “sleep deprived” when he signed the pardon, an excuse that his wife would resurrect to explain her fabulation of her landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Marc Rich bought his pardon and now flies freely in his private jet, while Leonard Peltier languishes in prison with no hope of release. That sums up Clintonism."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 29, 2008 10:12 PM

One impact of the Obama campaign I think is that we have forgotten the identity between war and politics. Sure, the loser gets hammered with charges of war crimes, but since this only applies to losers, there really are no crimes in war - only those for which one is caught.

The Clintons (read everyone except Obama) are still playing war games and our expectations have come untethered due to this remarkable guy that even gives Republicans weak knees (or at least thrilly legs).

In other words, there is nothing good or bad about Bill and Hill, they are as immoral or moral as a howitzer or a cluster bomb. We simply are expecting too much of them if we expect anything besides a thirst for victory.

Obama, on the other hand, has raised our expectations - maybe that's the false hope that Billary tried to warn folks about. The problem - as Scott reminded us lately - is that the same old politics apparently kills quite a few young Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Hillary probably would kill just as many - not for some religious transformation of the Holy Land since she's too smart for religion - but clearly if it pushed up her poll numbers in a certain swing state or two. It's beautiful, really.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | May 30, 2008 12:33 AM

"It's time for them to fire up the "Clinton Party" and run independently.

They don't need to blow up the Democratic Party... just compete to win.

Has anyone polled a three-way General Election?"

Don't say "Clinton" and "Three-Way" in the same breath, please!

Posted by Raindog | May 30, 2008 12:44 AM

"Don't say "Clinton" and "Three-Way" in the same breath, please!"

Notice how they've now trotted out this Congressman who claims he's "romancing" Huma Abedin, Hillary's "body woman" - got to knock down those lesbian rumors somehow before somebody gets fed up and starts using them for real.

If Abedin isn't either Mossad or Saudi intelligence (or BOTH! That wouldn't surprise me at all!), I'll eat my computer.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 2:02 AM

I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, largely out of the feeling that anything was better than four more years of the GOP in the White House. I then spent the next eight years alternately disappointed and furious at the Clinton administration. Eventually I left the Democratic Party. I've been a registered Independent for most of the last decade or so.

I very much opposed impeachment. I joined MoveOn. I signed Sean Wilentz's historians' petition against impeaching Clinton. I felt--and feel--that the Clinton impeachment was an abuse of Congress's impeachment powers.

In retrospect, however, it has become clear that, were it not for the impeachment effort, Clinton and Gingrich would have worked together quite productively during Clinton's second term. And this would not have been a good thing. Most notably, they would likely have privatized Social Security, an item that was on both of their agendas. This is the argument of a forthcoming book by the historian Steve Gillon: The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry That Defined a Generation.

With Bill Clinton in the White House and Congress in GOP hands, the best possible outcome was stalled government incapable of finding common ground between the executive and the legislature. And that's exactly what the impeachment mess produced. This doesn't justify impeachment, even retroactively. But it is an enormous silver lining around a dark cloud in our recent political history.

I disagree with those who say that a "good" conservative president--which I think is an apt description of Bill Clinton, where "good" means effective and relatively uncorrupt--is not such a bad thing. By encouraging media consolidation, passing NAFTA and WTO, destroying the welfare safety net, removing the Glass-Steagall regulations on banking, and putting back the cause of healthcare access reform by two decades (by prioritizing budget balancing and free trade over national healthcare), Clinton made this country a worse place. That his presidency was less harmful than those of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush is relatively cold comfort.

But at least we still have Social Security. And we wouldn't were it not for Clinton's impeachment, however gratuitous that was in its own right.

Posted by Ben Alpers | May 30, 2008 5:23 AM

Waingro has the best answer. The 1990s really were all about loathsome politics from all directions. But LittleMac of course points out that the Dems had lost three in a row, and I'll interject that Bill Clinton did not seem this way or act this way in the 1992 campaign. The Clintons, of course, turned out to be all about the Clintons, a very conservative agenda proved to suit their political longevity at the time, and I think this should have been clear to everyone. Pity much of the left was still starry eyed over 1992 and tribal over impeachment.

Posted by DBX | May 30, 2008 9:28 AM