Latest Clinton Flap: Clinton Advisers Will Leave Before Obama Speech
Unless the Democratic Party convention’s show-of-unity is truly overwhelming, the Democratic gathering is now turning into what seems to be Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and the Clinton camp shooting the party via a growing number of news stories that you usually don’t see during most national political conventions. Even contentious ones.
For instance, you don’t usually hear about key advisers of a major Democratic candidate who didn’t get the final nod skipping town when their rival who won it gives the major acceptance speech. You do now:
A number of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top advisers will not be staying in Denver long enough to hear Barack Obama accept the nomination for president, according to sources familiar with their schedules.
Clinton will deliver her speech Tuesday night. She will hold a private meeting with her top financial supporters Wednesday at noon, and will thank her delegates at an event that afternoon. Former president Bill Clinton will speak that night. Several of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are then planning to leave town. Among them, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and longtime supporters Steve Rattner and Maureen White. Another of Clinton’s top New York fundraisers, Alan Patricof, did not make the trip to Denver.
Robert Zimmerman, a Clinton supporter who is trying now to navigate between the two camps, will be staying for Obama’s speech. But he said in an interview that it would be unrealistic to expect there would not still be some tension between the two camps — he noted that the same was true with supporters of Gary Hart and, to a lesser extent, Howard Dean.
But check clips and go back to books such as The Making of the President series. You won’t find many instance such as this. The media will be blasted by some Democrats for focusing on the negative story rather than doing print or video-spin stenography but it is indeed a story — and one that in the end is not going to help Hillary Clinton’s longtime career.
Writes Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford:
The Democratic convention now teeters on the brink of a media disaster thanks to real news that threatens to distract reporters from the scripted show.
And wouldn’t you know, it’s all about the Clintons. The trouble with the news-free nature of modern conventions is how anything unplanned can instantly get of hand with thousands of reporters in town vying for every morsel of something different.
He cites the various press reports, plus a new McCain campaign ad that features a Clinton supporter saying she’s going to vote for John McCain. And what continues to be striking is that the Clinton camp’s ire and opposition is sparked less by political agenda or angry policy differences than anger over losing, bruised egos and political payback. Crawford again:
Clinton left it to the Obama camp to spin the angle that she was not vetted because she did not want to produce documents without a guarantee of serious consideration. If that’s true, you can well imagine that, without such assurances, she was not going to produce just about the only thing left that the world doesn’t know about the Clintons — the potentially controversial lists of donors to her husband’s presidential library.
Whatever the cause, the appearance of Clinton getting dissed by Obama opened Pandora’s Box for her enthusiasts. And it gave the media what they can never resist – a nasty fight involving the Clintons.
Who would have thought that the Clintons, who had once been considered the Democratic Party’s power couple and virtual party workhorses, would be increasingly leaving themselves open to charges that they sandbagged their party and all of the people running for other offices who need a strong vote at the top in November?
Meanwhile, some reports earlier suggested that Clinton would release her delegates to vote for Obama. Perhaps those were accurate but the reality is: she pointedly says she will release her delegates but not recommend for whom they should vote.
“I will be telling my delegates that I will vote for Barack Obama,” she said. “How they vote is a more personal decision. They want to have their chance to vote for me. That is what traditionally happens … some people are having to make up their minds because there are arguments pulling them both ways.”
Many of Clinton’s delegates have already made up their minds. Some of her pledged delegates will vote for the one that brung them. Many of her superdelegates — particularly those with substantial African-American constituencies — have already said they’ll vote for Obama. Reps. Anthony Weiner (who’s running for mayor of New York) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are both in that category.
But her decision not to decide puts others in a tough position, torn betewen their loyalty to her and their eye to the future.
All of this is likely being watched by Obama’s passionate supporters and could pose a huge problem for Clinton if Obama loses and she runs in 2012. The increasingly big collection of Clinton-related convention stories show a couple and staff that is at-best appearing to drag its heels and at-worst not wanting to pull out all stops for party unity — or to even ensure an outward show of unity. So if she runs in 2012, she’ll likely start out with a huge reservoir of bad will within her own party.
But are all of these stories accurate or could they be overblown and sensationalized? The Washington Post’s latest piece focuses on Cinton’s formal call for party unity. The LA Times’ blog sees Clinton’s appearance today differently than some other reports:
But Hillary Clinton, who spoke for only 10 minutes, was a study in support. To that end, she occasionally lapsed into the strained folksiness that sometimes afflicted her on the campaign trail: “Why is this important? Well, I don’t want to live through another Republican administration, I don’t know about you. Goodness, you know, how many times can you yell at the TV screen?”
She said was looking forward to increasing the number of Senate Democrats next year, to give “President Obama … a filibuster-proof Senate.”
Finally, she alluded to the TV ads that John McCain has been running, with primary season footage of Clinton criticizing Obama.
“Let me state what I think about their tactics and these ads,” she said. “I’m Hillary Clinton and I do not approve that message!
On the other hand, the Clintons have been in politics a long time. The Politico story, her advisers leaving early, the comments about her delegates — all will be taken as signals of what the Clintons really feel. And the Clinton aren’t sending out the signal so far for Democrats to bury the hatchets in places other than each others’ heads.
They know how to send out signals.
And the signals being sent out — reflected in media reports — are beginning to form a pattern that will not be lost on her supporters.
12 Responses to “Latest Clinton Flap: Clinton Advisers Will Leave Before Obama Speech”
[...] Latest Clinton Flap: Clinton Advisors Will Leave Before Obama Speech [...]
[...] Latest Clinton Flap: Clinton Advisors Will Leave Before Obama Speech [...]
What a depressing day, I just got back from Balloon Juice and feel about ready to shoot myself. All this sniping back and forth about whose feelings are hurt, who's a team player, how the Biden choice will effect (affect?) McCain's VP. Meanwhile, the stockmarket is tanking yet again. Russia is still refusing to leave Georgia, there are more explosions-suicide bombers in Afganistan. It is time to grow up folks and I make that statement first to myself.
Tony, I am sorry I insinuated hidden motives on why you left RFO. Independence is important and you have a perfectly good reason to move on. I disagree with you on Biden, but as someone who likes the idea of smaller, more workable government, I cannot deny he is a pretty conventional liberal and as a Senator he goes against the “Change” meme.
Silhouette, this is very difficult for me, but I apologize for going wacko on you as well. If you are a truly passionate Clinton supporter I understand your disappointment. I would have felt the same had Obama lost. Senator Clinton has conducted herself wonderfully as the junior Senator from New York and is an enormously talented woman. I feel that her talents lie more in the legislative area versus the executive, but I will not deny those talents. I never liked Bill Clinton, but under his administration I didn't get the sense of our country going off a cliff like it is now. If you are a true McCain supporter, you must feel very passionate about him to maintain your charade. I will certainly grant that the man served his country well and has demonstrated a past willingness to go against the partisian mess of government we are currently in.
Now, what I would like to hear from everyone is why you like your particular candidate (you are not allowed to use another other candidate, i.e. “I don't really like Obama but he's better than McCain.”
I will go first, I was immediately attracted to Obama because he gives a sense of someone who is most concerned with what works. There was a link I believe on this website about the excellence of Biden's staff. That impressed me. If that is something Obama noticed and respected, it means he is going to hire the best most competent people, not hacks that will I think go far. I also like what electing Obama will say to the world about our ability to transend our racial past. We stop becoming a Crusader nation when we show we are capable of putting someone with the middle name Hussain in office. Yes I know he isn't Muslim and I know there are people who have a problem with that middle name and he election isn't going to make Osama kiss and make up with us, but it makes it just that much harder for Osama to play to the arab street and portray us as racist crusaders.
I came of age as Reagan entered the White House. Things weren't working because the country moved too far to the left. I really think they aren't working now because they have moved too far to the right. I really think Obama, is the best person to restore that balance. McCain and Clinton are smart people who want to do well by the country, but they are too tied to the past.
Thank you for listening and I appreciate hearing from anyone who can tell me in a civil manner, why I might be wrong.
I am a somewhat tentative supporter of Obama. I've said in previous comments that to me this election is more about McCain than it is Obama. The reason being that Obama does have a thin resume. And that concerns me. If I felt more comfortable about McCain's policies I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't. And I don't like the direction he's drifting. But to speak of that would violate your “better/worse than the other guy” rule. So I'll limit it to the positive stuff.
It seems to me that one of the more important qualities in a president is the ability to communicate with and inspire the nation. After all, great presidents are often remembered through their great speeches. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan were all great speakers. And it mattered. Obama has oratorical skills in spades.
Obama also knows how to organize. I've been reading this Politico article about how the Obama campaign out-maneuvered, out-organized, and flat out-managed Clinton's. This article, as do many others, made the point that many Clinton insiders complained about how woefully disorganized her staff was, and how badly managed they were. That's not something you want to hear about a prospective president. Similar complaints have been made about McCain.
Obama is intellectually curious. He asks a lot of questions, and seeks out a broad spectrum of people for advice. And I too noticed that one of the things he liked about Biden is how he put together and interacts with his staff.
I believe Obama has a more inclusive view of foreign relations. And he certainly enjoys quite a bit of international appeal. One thing I do worry about though is how he will translate that into policy. I think Biden helps there, but he won't be the guy making the decisions.
Finally, I like Obama's energy plan much better than McCain's. It might be a bit over-enthusiastic, but I'm not too worried about that. Whatever he wants to do has to go through congress. But I think his approach is great. It's a forward-looking plan and he understands in considerable depth and detail what is necessary to pull it off.
Why would the Clinton supporters want to hang around. They are not getting jobs in the Obama Adminstration and how relevant will the junior senator from New York be in a week.
This is an inside the beltway story that people who do not understand the beltway are taking the wrong way.
I find this story a bit overwrought. So, three advisers nobody's ever heard of are leaving Denver early. As for Terry McAulliffe, I've seen him on the news many times and he's been a strong supporter of Obama since Clinton backed out.
The so-called PUMAs threatened to bring Denver down and cause a big stink. And they had 36 people show up. 36.
There are many Clinton supporters still undecided. That's fair enough. But they will come home to Obama and the Democrats because they are reminded at this convention of what the stakes are.
For example, that one former Clinton delegate who appeared in a McCain ad actually thought that McCain was pro-choice.
By the end of this convention, nobody will still believe these falsities about McCain, that he's some sort of moderate.
I am also getting very tired of all the media overplaying this “Clinton vs. Obama” stuff. I understand that conflict plays for good news ratings, but they are trying oh so very hard to trump up much more of a controversy than really exists. The bitter deadender Clinton supporters are really just a tiny, tiny group that are very, very vocal – I would have hoped that the media was smart enough to ignore these whiners. Then again, no matter how low I set the bar for the media, they never fail to slouch under it.
Frankly, I hope this convention is the last hurrah for Her Irrelevancy. But I wouldn't count on it.
I voted for Clinton because I thought she would be the strongest candidate against McCain, I still think so. I'm going to vote for Obama but a simple thought reversal is in order to simply ask the Clinton bashers: What if Clinton had won a narrow victory? Is there any way she could not have picked Obama as her vice-president? If she had chosen Joe Biden instead of Barack Obama the lid would have come off the party. Think about that for a moment, it's true and so why is the reversal simply OK?
Clinton is walking the fine line, she may or maynot want Obama to win the general election, if he loses she needs 2 things to win in 2012, the support of the Democratic Party and the fervor of her supporters. The addition of her being percieved as a more moderate than a failed Obama (and she is more moderate than he is) is a bonus. What would suit her best if the 2012 run is what she does want is to have a large show of support at Obama's expense, while she herself has the outward appearance of being supportive. So how does she show such support without her fans missing the message? Have others associated with the campaign send the signals. Maybe she does want Obama to win, but all these little signals don't seem to indicate this to me, I think she is being nice only because she needs the Democratic Party.
Manderso, comparing a Clinton win and Obama VP pick to the current situation is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges and this is why, Bill Clinton. Perhaps Obama would have been offered the VP but if he accepted he would have to accept being the VP in a co-Presidency. You can ask Al Gore how that would work out. In a way it might very well be worse. Bill was clearly the dominate partner in his Presidency and I don't think Senator Clinton would be the dominate partner in her Presidency, why would anyone want to be a VP in that sort of situation? The Atlantic story regarding the chaos in the Clinton campaign indicate a large part of the problem was Senator Clinton's inability to control her husband, problems that might very well have plagued her Presidency. Why would Senator Obama want to be part of that drama?
I think it was Obama's reluctance to be a part of that drama that disqualified Senator Clinton. Who I completely grant, on her own, would be a terrific VP. In fact, I might very well have originally supported her as President if it wasn't for her husband. However, her husband is very much a part of the package, and I never heard either her or her supporters say anything that would assure people otherwise.
I really hope to see more of Senator Clinton, either in the cabinet as Attorney General or as a distinguished Senator. I think she does a terrific job when she is independent of Bill.
I agree with Kathryn about Bill Clinton.
[...] themoderatevoice.comHe cites the various press reports, plus a new McCain… [...]